Conservation Priorities in the Squamish River Estuary To: Squamish Estuary Conservation Society

2.0 Human Activities in the Estuary

2.1 Brief History of Land Use

Given that human activities can alter physical and biological assemblages, as well as the interfacing relationships between the two, it is important to consider historic land uses in and adjacent to the estuary. Native use of the estuary is not documented but several Indian reserves are located nearby. Indian Reserve No. 24 is the most closely situated reserve, and is found at the Stawamus River confluence. Native peoples would have relied strongly on herring, trout and salmon populations in the estuary and contributing rivers, and on local plants and animals.

The first white settlers arrived in the Squamish Valley in 1877 (Estuary Working Group 1974). Timber harvesting became commonplace and before the turn of the century, a portion of the Squamish estuary (East Delta) was dyked and used for pasture and hay growing, to feed the oxen, and later the horses involved in resource extraction (Goldsmith, pers. com.). Eventually, steam-donkeys replaced horses in the harvesting of trees further up the Squamish valley. The hay fields were later used for cattle by Thor and Norm Halvorson (Goldsmith, pers. com.).
In 1909 the Howe Sound and Northern Railway Company constructed a fifteen-mile line from tidewater (Nexen site) northward to the Cheakamus River valley. This opened up larger timber tracts and facilitated the transport of logs to the booming grounds on the delta (Estuary Working Group 1974). A log sort was established in Crescent Slough. This log handling facility was relocated nearer to the mouth of the Central Channel in the mid 1970s, after the construction of a training dyke on the east bank of the Squamish River. Because of changes in the hydrological flow regime, the channel received far less water once the river was trained towards the western shore of the estuary.
Extensive mudflats were dredged up during the construction of the training dyke and terminals, creating a significant reduction in estuary productivity and loss of habitat for fish and waterbirds. These spoils were stored on the west-central portion of Central Delta, site of the Halvorson brothers’ sub-lease (cattle range) (Len Goldsmith, pers. com.). The spoils are only now being removed, by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. In an attempt to rehabilitate the Central Delta, fish channels are being created and planting programs are underway (Edith Tobe, pers. com.).

In 1913, Pacific Great Eastern Railway Company bought out the railway with the hope of building a deep-sea port. Locals were against the deep-sea port but the idea was raised again in the 1950’s, when the School of Community and Regional Planning of UBC envisaged a self-contained industrial community connected to Vancouver via a four-lane highway. This community project would entail the dredging and straightening of the lower Squamish River to provide deep-water frontage and forestall excessive sediment build-up (Estuary Working Group 1974). The 3-mile training dyke was built along the east side of the western estuary channel (Squamish River) in 1972, as part of this initiative. Concern over the development in the Squamish estuary environment prompted analyses of the entire UBC project by the Departments of Environment and Land Use (Estuary Working Group 1974). It was concluded that much of the Squamish Valley, encompassing active floodplains or portions of alluvial fans, was unsuitable for urban development because of the unpredictable hazards of the watercourses associated with these landforms. There were also limitations for septic tanks, sewage lagoons and buildings associated with the fluctuating water table and dangers of flooding. The impact assessment prompted the building of flood dykes, and land areas and slopes east of the Squamish lowlands were suggested as an alternative to expensive floodplain development. Moreover, the impact of this university study to native rights and land values had not been analyzed, and there was an oil crisis and economic downturn in 1973. A Squamish Estuary Management Plan process was initiated shortly thereafter in response to the 1974 Fisheries Act, which was created in an attempt to reverse drastic provincial declines in fish stocks. As a result of all these environmental and social issues, a port facility was never approved. Today the notion of a deep-sea port is once again being considered (Squamish Estuary Coordinating Committee 1999).

Other developments in the estuary or in its periphery include the: (1) establishment of a chemical plant (previously known as FMC, currently owned by Nexen) at the mouth of the Mamquam Channel, to supply treatment chemicals for the pulp mills; (2) installation of a powerline corridor on the western slopes near the mouth of Squamish River (a helicopter stationed at the “spoil site” on Central Delta to supply materials, had a large fuel leak (Len Goldsmith, pers. com.); (3) construction of a natural gas pipeline across Squamish River from Fisherman’s entrance (it follows the power line corridor to Woodfibre and crosses over to the Sunshine Coast (Len Goldsmith, pers. com.); (4) the dumping of hogfuels by Empire Logging at the head of Mamquam Blind Channel, from the current gravel pit to the shooting range; and (5) the establishment of sewage treatment plants, and a holding lagoon for the storage and periodic release of run-off from the municipality. The lagoon is situated midway in Cattermole Slough; storm waters are released into the area known as Bridge Pond. There are two sewage outfalls, one near the Mamquam River confluence with Squamish River, and one into Central Channel just south of the log sort. The latter is being phased out.
Heated debates over the future of the estuary and the lower Squamish Valley in general have persisted from the 1920’s into the 21^st century. Nearly half of this large wetland has been permanently altered by development. The Squamish Estuary Conservation Society was formed in 1984 to encourage the protection of the intertidal saltmarshes, their shrub and tree borders, and all of their associated fish and wildlife values. A management plan was created in 1982, and revised a number of times in the 1990s. The addition of an environmental coordinator on staff at the District of Squamish has increased the role of the municipality in dictating the fate of the estuary (Edith Tobe, pers. com.). A total of 379 ha were designated as a conservation area in this management plan, for the maintenance and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat (Squamish Estuary Coordinating Committee 1999). A Wildlife Management Area (WMA) of 561 ha encompasses most of this conservation area, and some forest habitat along the western boundary of the estuary. The WMA will be created and managed by the Ministry of Water, Lands and Air Protection in conjunction with stakeholders and local interest groups. In addition, 30 ha of the estuary have been transferred to the Squamish Nation and placed under a restrictive wildlife management covenant to ensure that its uses are compatible with the objectives of the WMA (Squamish Estuary Coordinating Committee 1999). A total of 350 ha are designated for industrial/commercial development, and the municipality will have ownership of the training dyke and use of other municipal infrastructures (waterlines, sewer lines and existing roads).
There are currently several committees overlooking the activities and management of the Squamish valley: the Squamish Management Environmental Review Committee (SMERC) involving the Municipality and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, oversees the development and maintenance of watercourses, and sewage outfalls. The Squamish Estuary Review Committee (SERC) involves all levels of government (DFO, EC, WLAP and District of Squamish). SERC reviews all proposed works and is currently dealing primarily with dredging concerns (e.g., in Blind Channel, Cattermole Slough, Terminals). The Squamish Estuary Management Committee (SEMC) involves all players including the public and concerned non-governmental organizations. SEMC comments on reports from the environmental review committee and comments from its members are necessary before proposed developments can proceed. To date the review process involving these three committees has not been effective because it is not operating within a larger framework, based on a unified vision and plan for the Squamish valley as a whole. With the growing population base and the advent of the Olympics, the Squamish Council is seeking to establish such a plan.