Details

Hits: 2726

Roundtable Submission

SEHAB Representative: Brian Smith

CA: Sandie Hollick-Kenyon

Area: North Vancouver, City of Vancouver, Port Moody

Date: Nov 5-7, 2107

Concerns from: Tsiel-Wauth Nation (TWN), Bridget Doyle

Bridget is concerned that all the TWN funding applications to the “Coastal Restoration Fund” were denied.  These funding applications were for habitat restoration projects in the Indian River Watershed, on the Maplewood Mudflats area and for a forage fish habitat project in Burrard inlet.  She explained to me that the reasons for the denials were not adequately expressed.

SEHAB Involvement:

Could SEHAB help TWN obtain proper DFO explanations for funding application denials?

TWN Positive story(??):

TWN was able to partner with the Port Authority on a habitat restoration project at the Maplewood Flats area.  The Port will fund the project and in turn use this area as off sets for a terminal expansion.

Concerns From: North Shore Stream Keepers (NSSK), Glen Parker

Not only is the NSSK concerned about the maintenance of dykes but also the development or construction of dikes without the consideration of other alternatives. Streamkeepers are concerned about the impacts of climate change on our streams and the salmonids that depend on them. Our specific concern is that as communities respond to rising flood risks using physical measures such as the construction of floodways and dykes or flow regulation by diversions, these measures will negatively impact natural stream processes. In other words, hardening of infrastructure to address climate change will sacrifice natural ecosystems that fish depend on. Our position is that non-physical, fish friendly alternatives should be used. Non-physical measures such as regulating land use (to better manage impervious cover and reduce development within floodplains), acquiring property on floodplains, and relocating infrastructure and buildings should be given priority over physical methods. We request that guidelines for federally and provincially funded programs contain explicit statements of the preference for non-physical, fish friendly alternatives.  The NSSK approached the Climate Change Advisory group for the Natural Resources Canada Climate Change Adaptation (NR Can) with similar concerns and asked that these considerations be included in future finding opportunities.  They were successful in getting specific mention of alternatives to hardening infrastructure in the NR Can funding document.  The specific wording in the recent NR Can funding document is as follows:

 “1.1 Alternative and Innovative Options to Hard Protection Infrastructure Solutions: While infrastructure solutions such as seawalls, bulkheads and dikes, are common strategies for addressing coastal erosion and flooding, alternative approaches that incorporate other measures, such as planned retreat, accommodation and/or nature-based features, can be more cost-efficient, environmentally sustainable and yield co-benefits such as aesthetic and recreational values.”

SEHAB Involvement:

SEHAB suggest to other groups that they could approach their municipalities in a similar fashion as the NSSK, expressing concerns with diking. Ask their municipalities to consider alternatives to dikes.

NSSK Positive Stories:

1. The feel good story is that NSSK has funding and has started work of some “off channel habitat” on Lynn Creek. The project has been identified for many years but is now underway.
2. NSSK engaged with the Port of Vancouver on the new grain terminal (G3) being built at the mouth of Lynn Creek. The first small win was that virtually all the concerns raised by NSSK were specifically included in the Environmental Permit. Many items were required by regulation but having them called out specifically in the permit highlighted them and hopefully has increased compliance. The engagement led to a site visit by NSSK to check permit compliance and a donation of $25,000 by G3 for enhancement work in the Lynn Estuary.
3. NSSK participated in the DNV planning of the proposed Maplewood area redevelopment. Two nice items that are now documented in the plan are the protection of the greenspace supporting McCartney Creek and the concept of gathering groundwater seepage into a stream that will flow to west side of Maplewood Flats to enhance (restore) salmon spawning habitat on the small bay that had its stream flow cut off years ago. Here is a link to the DNV project plans. http://www.dnv.org/property-and-development/maplewood-village-centre . The plan went to DNV Council last week.
4. NSSK provided input into the reconfiguration of the Fibreco operation on the NV waterfront. The input was not particularly significant but Streamkeepers being there to reinforce the needs of fish was well received. The reconfiguration will help fish by eliminating the wood chip operations and removing creosote piles. Here is a link to the project plans. http://www.fibrecoterminalenhancement.com/Fibreco_Display%20Boards_FINAL_WEB.pdf
5. NSSK is pleased to say that the coho juveniles in the reconfigured (deepened) pond at Morten Creek Hatchery are doing well and the predator protection devices installed (culverts with screens) seem to be being used. Last year all the coho juveniles were lost to otters and the hope is the reconfigured pond and predator protection will prevent that this year. Thanks to PSF and DNV for the funding and support of the project.
6. NSSK has provided input into the new overpass at the bottom of the “cut” near Lynn Creek and has been monitoring the water flow from the construction into Keith and Lynn Creeks. Early input has provided us contacts within MoTI/DNV and with the contractor (Lafarge). The small wins are that we have passed on what we have seen in our monitoring and it has help improve the stormwater management at the site. The contractor has offered to provide NSSK a site tour of the water management systems (early engagement opened the door to allow site access – something contractors are not always wanting to provide). MoTI (Highways) has promised to engage NSSK in the next project phase that will significantly impact Keith Creek. The idea discussed is to enhance the creek for pink and chum spawning and identify other enhancement opportunities in the Lynn Creek area that may be used as offsets to habitat loss if needed.

Feel good story from Mossom Creek:

Recently a very successful Bioblitz was conducted in the Mossom Creek watershed, Port Moody.   Here is a link to an article in a local news paper describing  the event:

http://www.mossomcreek.org/mossom-creek-bioblitz-tremendous-success/

Details

Hits: 2943

SEHAB Member: Brian Smith

Area: North Vancouver to Port Moody

Community Advisor:  Sandie Hollick-Kenyon

Meeting Date: Feb. 24-26, 2017

Identify up to 5 succinct issues that  you or your community would like SEHAB to take to DFO?

*SEHAB Work Plan/Sub Committees are: Wild Salmon Policy (Stock Assessment, Habitat), Aquaculture, and Capacity & Core Funding

Stories: Highlight important successes and challenges in your area that you would like to discuss this meeting. This can also be a place to provide background for the issues listed above.

Topic/Issue: Construction and maintenance of dikes on urban streams.  Existing dikes are being striped of vegetation and new dikes are being constructed with no or little thought given to riparian area protection. 

Successes:

Challenges:  Who has jurisdiction on the issue?  What if any role does DFO play? How can community groups help send the message that the riparian areas along dikes need to protected.  Need to find way to provide flood control on urban streams in an environmentally friendly way.

Topic/Issue:

Successes:

Challenges:

Topic/Issue:

Successes:

Challenges:

Topic/Issue:

Successes:

Challenges:

Submissions and Comments from Community Groups:

Submission from: Barbara Frisken

Title: President, North Shore Streamkeepers

We are concerned about plans for flood control mechanisms along creeks.  In particular, North Vancouver has a grant from the Province to do work on the Lower MacKay but it looks like they are going to go with traditional dikes, 4m wide, 1:3 slopes, no vegetation.  Since they are 1.5m tall, I figure these will be 13m or 40ft wide.  This must mean that we will lose riparian habitat in this area – which supports chum, pink and coho.  We are trying to figure out how to react to this.

The regulations are coming down from the Province and so this is a large issue.  I know that other community groups in Coquitlam and Burnaby have been faced with similar issues.  We are hoping that SEHAB could help bring this issue to a higher than municipal level.  Perhaps help developing a discussion paper would be a good start.  What are the issues, who has jurisdiction, what are the possible solutions?  This way the smaller groups can go to their MLA’s with a consistent, informed message.  This could then be followed up by action from the larger environmental organizations- SEHAB, Coho Society, PSF etc.

Thank you for any help SEHAB can provide.

Brian’s comments to SEHAB:  I think what is happening on the North Shore, Burnaby and Coquitlam with dike construction/maintenance is only a small example of what will soon be a larger problem throughout the Lower Mainland and in larger communities Province wide.  Climate change is causing sea levels to rise, increased annual rain fall amounts and more extreme weather events.  More communities/municipalities will be turning to dikes to protect infrastructure and public/personal property from flooding.  I believe SEHAB can help find a more environmentally friendly way to do this.

Details

Hits: 5511

Round Table Report

 From: Brian Smith

 Representing the Community from Port Moody to West Vancouver

 SEHAB Meeting:  November 2-4, 2012

 Community Advisor: Sandie Hollick-Kenyon

 Joint Water Use Plan for the Capilano and Seymour Water Sheds

 For the past two years I have had a seat on the Consultative Committee and the Fish Technical Working Group helping to develop a Joint Water Use Plan (JWUP) for the Capilano and Seymour water sheds.  After numerous (26) eight hour meetings I am happy to report that the public input component to the process has come to an end and a plan has been developed.  The plan will now be presented to the Metro Vancouver Water Board for approval and then passed along to the Water Comptroller who will review it and hopefully approve the plan quickly.  The JWUP was initiated by Metro Vancouver and there was representation from DFO, Provincial Fisheries, Seymour Salmonid Society, the Drift Fishers, the Steelhead Society, Canoeing and Kayaking groups as well as other stake holders at the table helping to develop the JWUP. It is important to note that the plan was unanimously agreed to by all parties.  It was identified early in the process that an important component of the JWUP would be increasing water flow from both the Capilano Dam and Seymour Falls Dam to improve fish habitat. Therefore, as part of the JWUP new flow regimes were developed for both water sheds.  The new flow regimes represent greatly improved minimum water flows for both rivers.  As an example, the new flow regime for the Seymour River would increase absolute minim flows (drought situation) during late summer and fall from 0.57cms (cubic meters per second) to 0.70cms and in the winter from 0.57cms to 1.36cms.  If the new flow regime was in place on the Seymour this past fall it would have resulted in a threefold increase in flow.  Obviously these new flow regimes represent a dramatic improvement for fish.  

Although there is infrastructure problems holding up delivery of agreed upon Capilano flows there is no such problem on the Seymour.  The required infrastructure to deliver the new agreed upon flows at the Seymour Falls dam already exists.  The hold up on implementing the newly agreed to flows on the Seymour is purely bureaucratic.

Understanding how much of a fisheries benefit these new flows represent, many of the people involved with the JWUP are asking why Metro Vancouver will not immediately implement the new flow regime on the Seymour.

SEHAB Action Item:  Ask DFO at the RHQ meeting to investigate with Metro Vancouver why the new flow regime on the Seymour River cannot be immediately implemented.

Brian Smith      

Details

Hits: 8229

Roundtable Report for SEHAB

Date: January 28, 29 and 30/ 2011

Community Advisor: Sandie Hollick Kenyon

Area: Port Moody to West Vancouver

Area Representative: Brian Smith (Hatchery Manager Seymour Salmonid Society)

Aquaculture Licensing

I am disappointed that DFO did not consult with SEHAB prior to the decision being made that aquaculture licenses would be required for any person/community group/school program/federal facility, basically anyone involved with salmon enhancement.Is this not the type of issue that DFO should be soliciting our advice on??

Many questions have come to me from my area about this new licensing requirement and I would like to bring these questions to the attention of SEHAB and DFO.I hope that some of these questions can be answered at this meeting by DFO representatives.

1  .Will the licences be specific to each community organization/individual/school group etc. Or will bulk licensing occur in certain circumstances.I don’t see the point of bulk licensing.

2.Most groups involved with enhancement have to sign an annual contract with DFO.Will these new licenses reflect the contract obligations?

3.What will be the reporting responsibilities for these new contracts?Will they be the same as what is required in the DFO contract?

4.Who in DFO will be responsible to ensure that license obligations and DFO contract obligations are met?Should not license and contract obligations be the same?

5.Whose responsibility will it be to apply for these licenses?Are CA’S involved in the development of the licenses?

6.I understand that this will be an annual license.Will there be a charge for this license?If not is there a commitment that there won’t be a charge in the future?

These are only a few examples of the questions that are coming from my area.

Joint Water use Planning (JWUP) Capilano and Seymour Watersheds

·Please refer to Eric Carlisle’s report for details.I wanted to mention that Eric and I are on the Consultative Committee as well as a Fisheries Sub Committee.The Terms of Reference (TOR) are still being worked out for the Consultative committee and any sub committees.

·The TOR will be ratified at the next meeting in the last week of February 2011.

·Minutes of the previous meeting will be approved at the next meeting and then posted on a Metro Vancouver web site.Once Eric and I have this web site address one of us will forward it to SEHAB.

·The time commitment for this process is intimidating.Eric and I will be participating in a minimum 12 six hour meetings for the Consultative Committee plus another possible 12 meetings for the Fisheries Sub Committee in one year.Twenty four all day meetings in one year.

·I am confident that this process will result in benefits for both watersheds.

Stream Urbanization

A volunteer from my area (Miles Hogan) has approached me about his concerns that there is not enough emphasis placed on protecting urban streams and that there should be more cooperation between DFO and Municipalities to protect riparian areas on urban streams.Miles has produced a two page report that we can reference.Two questions come to mind from his report:

1.Is there any formal agreement between municipalities and DFO to protect riparian zones on urban streams and reclaim the areas when possible?

2.What is the status of the Environmental Review Committees?Miles concerns seem to be a perfect fit for an Environmental Review Committee.

Brian Smith

Details

Hits: 8427

SEHAB Round Table Presentation

Date: May 29/10

Name: Brian Smith

CA/Area: Sandie Hollick-Kenyon/Port Moody to West Vancouver

The issue I am bringing forward affects more than just my area it actually affects the entire region 2 area. For most of 2009 and the first five months of 2010 the region has been without a provincial steelhead biologist. Mr. Greg Wilson (steelhead biologist for MOE for region 2) has been working for BCIT during his absence from the provincial steelhead biologist position. My understanding is that Mr. Wilson will return to the biologist position in a limited capacity by the end of May 2010. When Mr. Wilson returns he will only be permitted to spend less than 40% of his time on steelhead issues (100% of his time in the past was spent on steelhead issues). How can anyone who is only permitted to spend less than 40% of their time on steelhead issues be expected to oversee and be actively involved with all the steelhead projects in the region. This is very concerning and the following is only a small sample of the steelhead projects in the region that the biologist would be expected to be involved with:

· Possible Brohm Creek development (Brohm is a productive steelhead stream).

· Steelhead research projects on the Squamish system (adults and juvenile).

· Steelhead research projects on the Seymour River (adults and juveniles).

· Greater Georgian Basin Steelhead recovery Program. This program was developed to address the declining steelhead population in the region and now there is now biologist to oversee the program.

· Fertilization of streams. Who’s organizing/monitoring?

· Steelhead enhancement from hatcheries.

· There are many streams in region two that the extirpation of steelhead is possible. These streams need the attention of the regional biologist.

I do not believe that any biologist only permitted to spend less than 40% of their time on steelhead management can possibly address the above listed issues. Please remember that the list above is only a small sample of the steelhead management issues in region 2. A full time steelhead biologist is required in region 2. Whatever happened to Gordon Campbell`s promise of “the best managed fishery in North America, bar none”?

Details

Hits: 4245

SEHAB Member: Brian Smith

Area: Port Moody to West Vancouver

Community Advisor: Sandie Hollick-Kenyon

Date: February 20, 2016

Key Issues:

What top three points can you distill from community input to take to DFO RHQ?

1.  DFO needs to provide core funding and technical support for the Seymour River Rock Slide Mitigation project.

Stories:

A few examples of successes, failures, challenges.

At 5:30 am on December 7^th 2014, a rock slide occurred within a canyon 0.5km downstream from the Twin Bridges crossing on the Seymour River in North Vancouver.  The slide deposited 50,000 cubic meters of rock into the canyon and temporarily blocked the Seymour River. The blockage created a dammed pool that varies from 13 to 25 meters deep, backwatering the river with the elevated water levels extending 600 to 1,100 m upstream of the slide depending on the river flow rate.  Precipitation due to storm events in the upper Seymour River resulted in two flood pulses releasing over the slide material on December 9^th and 10^th, 2014. These increases in flow mobilized and re-deposited finer rock slide debris downstream, resulting in settling of larger rock slide boulders into space created by the removal and re-deposition of the finer debris. Based on data collected after the rock slide event and assessment of the expected extent and frequency of inundation at the Twin Bridges upstream of the rock slide, Metro Vancouver proactively deactivated and removed the Twin Bridges crossing on January 12, 2015. Access to the slide site and Fisherman’s Trail were limited and the site was secured to limit public access and provide site safety.

The rockslide occurred approximately 14 km’s downstream of the dam and blocked fish migration through the slide area. The majority of productive spawning and rearing habitat for salmon lies upstream of the slide, while the downstream region is primarily developed land. The Seymour River is a designated wild coho, pink, chinook and winter and summer steelhead river. Steelhead are currently listed as a conservation concern due to results from a Provincial angling assessment of Seymour River steelhead (1983-present day). If fish passage is not re-established immediately, all salmon species and steelhead will likely be reduced to remnant populations as early as 2019. Pink, chum and Chinook salmon also access their spawning and rearing habitats through the slide area. While some spawning does occur below the slide for these species, their populations could also be significantly reduced within the same time frame.

Many of the plants and animals of the surrounding ecosystem rely on salmon as a food source and supply of marine-driven nutrients. Without the restoration of migrating fish to the affected area, these organisms could be significantly impacted. We strongly believe that the Seymour River is a stream at risk.

The goal of the Seymour River Rock Slide Mitigation Project is to restore fish passage through the rock slide, thereby reducing habitat fragmentation and loss and reducing the threat of stream degradation / ecosystem health. The objective of this project is to re-establish fish passage by use of low velocity explosives to beak down the slide debris, and high water events to wash the broken-up material down stream. This is the safest, most natural and least invasive method for workers, river users, and ecosystem inhabitants. This work will be an iterative process based on safe instream work opportunities immediately prior to high-water events. It is estimated that each rock-breaking opportunity will occur over a 4-7day period, 6-10 times per year until acceptable water flows and fish passage are restored. 

Until passage is restored, a floating fence will be placed closer to the mouth of the river in order to capture fish before they become trapped below the slide. The fence also has the potential to provide high-precision stock assessment data which will be used in conjunction with fish monitoring data collected from the slide once work commences.

The ultimate measure of success for this project will be the restoration of water and fish passage at low water levels.  During the summer and fall of 2015, radio and acoustic tags were applied to both upstream-migrating adult coho and steelhead and downstream-migrating steelhead smolts. Receivers were placed at either end of the slide debris to track the movement of the tagged fish. Movement will continue to be monitored on all receivers in conjunction with visual stream surveys of rearing and spawning habitat. Application of radio tags to semelparous adults will continue as individuals return to the Seymour River. Success will be determined by the percentage of tagged individuals that are able to move past the slide and by the presence of spawning adults visually confirmed above the slide.

The project is not a quick fix and it is not cheap:

• One day = $5,000 - $7,000 (including materials)
• Per event (5-day work period) = $30,000
• Per Year (assuming 8 work events) = $240,000
• Total (5 Years) = $1,200,000

Obviously this project is too large a scope for a community based not for profit organization to be responsible for.  We are asking SEHAB to help us convince DFO that they must lead and fund this project. 

Issues Specific to SEHAB’s Work Plan:

Submissions, Comments from Groups:

No submissions/comments from groups received.