New agricultural waste regulations will not protect water quality

In January 2017, Shuswap Environmental Action Society submitted a brief to the B.C. government’s Agricultural Waste Control Regulations Review that was tasked to provide recommendations to improve regulations for agricultural practices province-wide in order to better safeguard drinking water quality. On February 28, 2019, the Agricultural Waste Control Regulation was replaced by the Agricultural Environmental Management Code of Practice, which provides more rigorous requirements for applying fertilizer and wastes to agricultural lands.

Upon review SEAS has determined that the new Code still does not immediately address the problems caused by excess phosphorus and it allows non-professionals to prepare plans. Initially, nutrient management plans are only required if fields test too high for nitrates and requirements for these plans to address problems caused by excessive phosphorus levels will not be required for five years.

The Code defines qualified professionals as either someone who “is registered in British Columbia with the person’s appropriate professional association, acts under that professional association’s code of ethics and is subject to disciplinary action by that professional association” or “ through suitable education, experience, accreditation and knowledge may be reasonably relied on to provide advice within the person’s area of expertise as it relates to this code.” Any person employed by farmers to prepare plans would be in a conflict of interest and thus these plans could never replace effective oversight by government experts.

While the Shuswap Basin is identified as a “phosphorus-affected area,” the designation does not affect management until the year 2024.

Nonetheless, the new Code does forbid the spreading of manure on fields with over 50% snow coverage, frozen or flooded fields, or if the manure could enter a stream. It requires testing of both nitrates and phosphorus, and stipulates that plans be implemented.

Yet, like a house of cards, the entire new system is dependent upon viable and effective monitoring and enforcement. Any action to prevent pollution from excessive application of agricultural wastes to soils already saturated with phosphorus and/or nitrates is dependent upon the efforts of conservation officers, who already have an excessive workload.

“We are disappointed that the lengthy process to revise the regulations, which began in 2009, did not result in significant improvements to management,” explained Jim Cooperman. “Consequently, it is likely that industrial diary operations that routinely spread liquid manure on fields that already have elevated levels of phosphorus, will continue and thus pose higher risks to water quality in Mara and Shuswap Lakes,” Cooperman added.

Here is where you can find the new legislation and other details about it – BC Environment

Here is the 2007 study about agricultural soils that show how how Shuswap River Valley agricultural soils are already saturated with phosphorus – Okanagan_soil_study_report_2007

Watershed Watch Salmon Society and Shuswap Environmental Action Society

Media Release

February 11, 2019

DFO allowed overfishing of Fraser River sockeye salmon in 2018: New data from spawning grounds

Iconic Adams River run among the hardest hit

Vancouver, BC — Fisheries and Oceans Canada was estimating there were 6 million late-summer run sockeye returning last August and September when it allowed 2.7 million fish to be harvested. Last week, when the final spawning numbers were released, it turns out only 4.27 million can be accounted for between the number that were caught and the number that spawned.

“Fishery managers and the Fisheries Minister ignored obvious warning signs and allowed aggressive fishing based on flawed, risky assumptions,” said Aaron Hill of the Watershed Watch Salmon Society.

The iconic Adams River population was hit particularly hard, with only 535,564 fish making it home to spawn; far short of the predicted return and the lowest on record for this dominant cycle. All but one of the other late summer Fraser sockeye runs also had extremely low returns.

“By mid-October, we feared the return was going to be much worse than what was being claimed in the media, because we did not see the numbers of fish in the Adams River that should have been there for a return as large as the fishery managers had predicted,” said Jim Cooperman, President of the Shuswap Environmental Action Society.

The 2018 late-summer sockeye were the progeny of the 2014 run, which itself was overfished by a staggering 1.4 million fish. Several late-summer run Fraser sockeye populations were recently listed as “endangered”, “threatened” or of “special concern” by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, an arms-length federal science body, and are being considered for protection and rebuilding under Canada’s Species at Risk Act.

The numbers released on Friday by DFO and the Pacific Salmon Commission clearly tell the story of what happened to the late summer run. While the pre-season expectation was 7.4 million, the majority of the fishing decisions were based on a run estimate of 6 million, but the final total return (catch plus spawners) was only 4.29 million; an overestimation of 30%.

“It is a wonder they were only this far off,” continued Hill. “The scientists were estimating there were between 1.8 and 6.6 million late-run sockeye headed for the Fraser. They had no idea how many sockeye were actually there, but the managers went with a higher number in order to allow aggressive fishing, and the Minister let it happen.”

The Pacific Salmon Commission is the joint Canada-US management agency that provides data and recommendations to the Fraser River Panel, which is responsible for designing and implementing the fisheries. Last summer, the panel, which is dominated by salmon fishermen, reduced the late-time sockeye ‘management adjustment’ to near zero (the number of sockeye added to spawning targets to account for fish that die between the river mouth and the spawning grounds). This both decreased any ‘buffer’ they had against such overestimations and increased the number of fish theoretically available to harvest. The panel exceeded their planned “allowable exploitation rate” of 58.4 percent on late-run sockeye, with a final rate of 62.9 percent. It was only due to luck that the harvest was not greater and the damage to the population more severe, as allowable catches of up to 3.5 million sockeye were possible if they had been able to identify additional fishing opportunities.

“They were aware of the uncertainty and risk inherent in estimating how many late-timed sockeye were delaying in the Gulf of Georgia, since the same scenario played out last time around, in 2014, with the same disastrous results.” said Greg Taylor, senior fisheries advisor for Watershed Watch Salmon Society. “Yet they decided to fish hard anyway.”

“Our iconic sockeye salmon are already struggling due to the impacts of climate change, fish farms and loss of habitat. One would think that the management direction should be precautionary and focused on conservation to rebuild the stocks, yet the overall goal continues to be exploitation,” said Cooperman. “Industry and DFO managed the northern cod to extinction and now they are repeating the same mistakes again on the West coast.”

“To reverse the downward spiral, we must change the pattern of exploitation that began when the first canneries were built on the coast at the beginning of the last century and learn from the way First Nations managed salmon populations for thousands of years,” concluded Taylor.

Taylor suggests a combination of robust compliance monitoring with the reintroduction of known-stock fisheries, which harvest large proportions of the fish near their spawning grounds, where they can be accurately counted, thus ensuring enough fish return to spawn to sustain the stocks before fishing commences.

Contact:

Greg Taylor, Senior Fisheries Advisor
Watershed Watch Salmon Society and Fish First Consulting
gtaylor.fishfirst@gmail.com
604-970-0277 cell, 250-537-2399

Jim Cooperman, President
Shuswap Environmental Action Society
jcoop@ribaa.ca, 250-679-3693, cell 250-319-4197

Aaron Hill, Executive Director
Watershed Watch Salmon Society
aaron@watershedwatch.ca
250-818-0054

BACKGROUNDERS

Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2018 Late Run Sockeye preliminary spawning escapement estimates

2018 Fraser Summary Near Final spreadsheet compiled by Greg Taylor, Fish First Consulting

Video: Saving Wild Salmon by Changing the Way We Fish

Feb. 13th CBC Interview with Greg Taylor – Adams River 1

Feb. 14th CBC interview with DFO spokesperson Jennifer Nener Adams River 2

Talkback response to the DFO interview:

Hopefully, listeners who heard the DFO spokesperson respond to the valid concerns about the diminishing salmon caused by overfishing will have realized that she is but an apologist for for government and the fishing industry. She tried to convince us that the low return to the Fraser River and the lowest return on record to the Adams River was not a problem because it was just a bit less than what they anticipated. She wants to the public to think that the problem is the uncertainty of estimating the late run rather than the fishing quota that is based on this uncertainty. Of course, she avoided telling that the Fraser River Panel that determines the fishing quotas is primarily made up of commercial fishing advocates and despite the uncertainty, they always focus on maximizing exploitation of salmon, despite the fact these fish are threatened by climate change, habitat destruction and diseases and sea lice from fish farms. Hopefully, the public does not buy into this cover-up and realize that better efforts are needed to protect our iconic salmon.

Shuswap Water Action Team Society

Shuswap Environmental Action Society

Media Release

January 17, 2018

Shuswap water protection groups call for improvements to agricultural waste control regulations

The Shuswap Water Action Team Society (SWAT) and the Shuswap Environmental Action Society (SEAS) recently submitted a brief to the B.C. government’s Agricultural Waste Control Regulations Review that is tasked to provide recommendations to improve regulations for agricultural practices province-wide in order to better safeguard drinking water quality. The process was prompted by the review of the Hullcar Aquifer, which has been contaminated by elevated levels of nitrates from industrial dairy wastes.

In the Shuswap, concerns about deteriorating lake water quality and corresponding algae blooms resulted in numerous studies and the creation of the Shuswap Watershed Council that is tasked with ongoing monitoring, as well as developing solutions. While the concern in Hullcar is primarily with nitrates and in the Shuswap it is with phosphates, both pollutants are primarily from the same source – cow manure, which is sprayed on fields in liquid form at industrial dairy farms. The application of chemical fertilizers also contributes to the problems.

“Our primary goal in participating in the review was to ensure that any improvements to the regulation also address the growing concerns regarding the rising levels of phosphorus in both river soils and the watershed,” explained SWAT president Ray Nadeau. “One of our key recommendations is that waste control decision making and planning must consider the cumulative effects from years of nutrient loading of soils and water bodies,” added Nadeau.

Currently, nutrient management plans (NMPs), which are an effective way to reduce both nitrogen and phosphorus run-off into water bodies, are only prepared if there are recognized negative impacts. The SEAS/SWAT brief that was prepared by consultant Natalya Melnychuk, PhD, recommends that NMPs be prepared proactively for all large farming operations.

Environmental farm plans (EFPs), which provide farmers and ranchers with opportunities to complete agri-environmental risk assessments, plans, and projects to increase agricultural sustainability, are currently voluntary. SEAS and SWAT have recommended that environmental planning should be mandatory.

“The current “self-reliance” system of agricultural waste control management is clearly not working,” explained Jim Cooperman, SEAS president. “Our brief focuses on the use of the precautionary principle in decision making and the need for improved monitoring and enforcement by government staff to help minimize nutrient run-off into Shuswap rivers and lakes,” he added.

Another key SEAS/SWAT recommendation that has also been made by the Shuswap Watershed Council is that the Shuswap watershed should be designated as a sensitive receiving environment, given documented evidence of stress (e.g., algae blooms) from excess nutrients in the lakes. Also, future nutrient planning should address the recent study that shows 86 percent of fields in the Shuswap River valley already have high to very high levels of residual phosphorus in the soil.

“We believe that the inclusion of our recommendations along with appropriate resources to support farm operators in complying with the new regulations and adequate monitoring and enforcement will help the B.C. government protect water bodies from agriculturally-sourced nutrient loading,” added Cooperman.

Read the complete SEAS&SWAT AWCR Brief

MEDIA COVERAGE:

Shuswap organizations want improvements to water protection

B.C. Government conducting agriculture waste review

Tracy Hughes, Shuswap Market News
Feb. 1, 2018
Environmental and water protection groups are calling for increased action from the B.C. government to reduce the impact of agricultural waste on the Shuswap watershed.
In the wake of problems from agricultural waste in the Hullcar aquifer, the B.C. government is conducting an agriculture waste review and has asked local groups to provide input and ideas for improvement.

There is concern in the area for elevated levels of both nitrates and phosphates, which can be linked to waste related to dairy and cattle operations, including the spreading of manure and chemical fertilizers.

The Shuswap Water Action Team (SWAT) is advocating for the urgent need to measure and monitor the cumulative effect of all the waste discharges into the Shuswap and to place a moratorium on new or increased industrial agricultural developments until the impact to the watershed is known.

“The total volume of waste discharges is increasing in the Shuswap, especially with recent increases in industrial agricultural facilities. It’s inevitable that it will ultimately increase contamination of our water,” states the SWAT recommendations. “The Shuswap River is already the largest source of contaminants into our lake.”

They also counter the notion that the industry can police itself, as in the current professional reliance model for following environmental requirements.

“There will always be those that don’t follow regulations, so independent monitoring and inspections are essential, along with increased authority over agriculture volumes and locations.”

Ray Nadeau, president of SWAT says without these changes, “our water will continue to deteriorate indefinitely.”

The Shuswap Environmental Action Society echoes the SWAT recommendations and want to see mandatory environmental planning.

“Our brief focuses on the use of the precautionary principle in decision-making and the need for improved monitoring an enforcement by government staff to help minimize nutrient run-off into Shuswap Rivers and lakes, ” says spokesperson Jim Cooperman.

The Shuswap Watershed Council, also sent recommendations, and chairperson Paul Demenok, says their approach was to “take a balanced view of the issue so that both environmental and economic interests are taken into consideration.”

“On the one hand we have the lakes and rivers that support our tourism economy and are enjoyed by our residents. On the other hand we have a critically important agricultural industry right her in our region, contributing to locally grown food. Our perspective is that a revised agricultural waste regulation should take all of that into account.”

Points made in their submission included considering designating the Shuswap watershed as a “sensitive receiving environment,” and collaborating with the ministry to define what that term means, requiring nutrient management planning in the region, more protective measures for setbacks from water sources and storage to eliminate leachate and developing a strategy to regulate small lot holdings.

Shuswap Environmental Action Society

Press Release

Reggae and Ska dance music at Boogie for Nature

On Saturday, May 20^th the third annual Boogie for Nature will be at the Gleneden Hall and will feature the reggae and ska dance music of Vernon’s Chipko Jones. This popular fundraiser for the Shuswap Environmental Action Society also includes a silent auction.

Chipko Jones writes, records and performs reggae and African rhythms because for them and their fans, these styles create connection and the music is upbeat, friendly, dance oriented, and family based. A Chipko show is a celebration of all of this! Their name originates from the Chipkos, who were the original earth protectors in 17th century India. They sparked a love for nature movement that still exists today. Unfortunately they were all killed while trying to protect the forests, but the movement lives on because of that tragedy.

With the success of their first album, Chipko Jones has a busy tour schedule this year with a focus on shows that have meaning and purpose beyond just the music. Currently, they are writing a song about maintaining invasive free lakes for Christina Lake. Opening for the band, is an energizing young singer-songwriter, Colton Nikkel, who recently moved to the Shuswap.

“There are many music enthusiasts in the Shuswap who love to dance, but are frustrated because there are few opportunities for dancing to live music in Salmon Arm,” said Jim Cooperman, SEAS president. “Since dancing is such a great way to celebrate the beautiful place we live in and these events help fund environmental efforts, SEAS is pleased to provide this opportunity once a year,” he added.

Tickets for the dance are at Acorn Music and can be ordered by phoning, 832-8669.

March 30, 2016

To: Dan Passmore, CSRD Senior Planner

Via email to dpassmore@csrd.bc.ca

Re: Gateway Application for Zoning Amendment

These are the concerns we have with the proposed development expansion:

1. The sewage treatment plan, as presented, has not been approved by the Ministry of Environment. Gateway is proposing that the system be taken over by the CSRD, which would require our tax dollars to fund a problematic system designed to help the developer profit from the development. There is very little suitable land below the bluff with adequate soil coverage for drip irrigation. The plan still calls for lake discharge if and when other dispersal methods are not feasible, such as during the freshet period.
2. Flooding occurs frequently, which results the sewage system to be shut down. Rapid infiltration is proposed for a corner of the development that was under water in 2012 and thus should not be used for sewage effluent dispersal.
3. The only amenity for the development is a miniscule beach and seasonal dock. Current residents often drive the short distance to this beach and fill all the parking available along the highway, blocking public use. Increasing the population in this development will further exacerbate this problem. The license for the dock includes the stipulation that users do not park on the highway, which is routinely ignored.
4. The dock and buoys are close to the mouth of the world famous Adams River. Sockeye fry spend the first few months of their lives in the bay near the mouth, which is the key salmon nursery area. Motorboat activity and potential fuel spills have the potential to harm these fish. The Ministry of Transport has only authorized 23 buoys and yet there are an additional unauthorized buoys there now. Since the rules have been broken, the CSRD should not approve these additional buoys.
5. Access to the beach is problematic currently, as residents cross a busy highway near a dangerous curve in the road. The proposed solution by Bunt and Associates is poorly designed and would not work as residents would have to walk in a ditch, that is filled with water during the freshet, and then would have to walk alongside the curve in the road on a narrow strip of land above a water course. There is not room for the 3 metre wide trail required.
6. A better plan for the upper bench area would be to divide it into one-hectare lots, which would negate the need for more sewage treatment, as septic systems are allowed on large lots. There is also more demand for larger lots, where boomers can grow gardens and fruit trees.
7. The Gateway development began despite strong opposition from the community because the CSRD had no zoning or land use plans in place at the time. Opposition remains, despite the CSRD’s revision of the official community plan that resulted in Lee Creek becoming a secondary settlement area.
8. Residents at the development routinely break the rules. There is a covenant that states no vegetation should be removed and people should be excluded in the 1.1-hectare area designated as fish habitat. Yet, the grass is mowed and residents use the area for a trail to the beach.  Only removable structures are allowed in the flood plain, yet park models are there along with other buildings. The dock is allowed only if people do not park their cars there, yet this rule is ignored. Why should the CSRD allow for more development when existing rules are not followed?
9. There are fire safety concerns given that there is only one exit from the development, cabins would be located very close to each other and buildings are planned close to the adjacent forest.

10. The property is now zoned for one residence and thus, all the other residences there are non-conforming. Allowing the development to proceed would be akin to rewarding irresponsible, unsanctioned development and sends the message that it is ok if developers break the rules, as they will be allowed to proceed later anyway.

Given all these flaws with the proposed development, we urge you to reject the rezoning application.

Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.

Sincerely,

Jim Cooperman, President

Shuswap Environmental Action Society

See the photos here: Reject Gateway’s development expansion

There have been a number of articles already about the low numbers of sockeye this year, but now that the run is nearly over, the crisis is obvious. Since salmon runs are on a 4-year cycle, to get an idea of how good or bad the return is, one must review the numbers.

Here they are:
2011 – 148,169 (this is the most important number as it provides an indication of what to expect this year)
2007 – 52,713
2003 – 354,534
1999 – 314,416
1995 – 395,951
1991 – 1,201,180
This year – as few as 3,000!

The crash is likely related to the massive “warm blob” in the ocean off the coast from Calif. to Alaska but other factors could include fish farms, habitat loss, and competition for feed in Alaska waters

Here is the media coverage of this year’s dismal run on the Adams River:

TV coverage:  Global News, CTV

B.C.’s iconic Adams River salmon run off to a ‘grim’ start
Mark Hume
VANCOUVER — The Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Nov. 04, 2015

British Columbia’s iconic Adams River salmon run, a spectacular natural event that has become an international magnet for tourism drawing up to 250,000 visitors a year, appears to have collapsed.
Instead of 1.2 million fish, as was hoped for in preseason forecasts, only about 3,000 sockeye have returned to the river, which flows into Shuswap Lake, about 75 kilometres northeast of Kamloops.
Lara Sloan, communications adviser for the department of Fisheries and Oceans, said DFO is reluctant to answer questions about the situation on the Adams River.
“We don’t want to speculate or provide early observations – we need to wait until all of the data is in to provide a complete picture,” she said in an e-mail.
But Jim Cooperman, president of the Shuswap Environmental Action Society, said the spawning beds, many of which have viewing platforms where visitors can usually take pictures of massive schools of bright-red salmon, are empty this fall. The run peaks in mid-October and it is unlikely more fish will arrive now.
“It’s pretty grim here at the Adams River,” he said on Wednesday. “We’re supposed to have quite a few salmon. It’s supposed to be the next largest run [in the cycle] and only 3,000 salmon showed up. There were quite a few Chinook, but, I mean, it’s sockeye that are our iconic species, and it’s quite depressing here really.”
Sockeye spawn every year, then die. Because the fish mature at four years of age, the runs are on a cycle, which means each one usually reflects the progenitor run that occurred four years before.
Last year, about four million fish were expected (after 3.8 million spawned four years earlier) but only 700,000 returned. This year’s run was expected to number at least 200,000 based on 2011 returns, and early forecasts predicted as many as 1.2 million fish. At 3,000 spawners, it is the worst return ever on that cycle; the next lowest year was 1939, when 16,000 fish came back.
Mr. Cooperman said the small return represents “a very frightening crash,” and two successive poor years should set off alarm bells.
“Could salmon being going the way of Atlantic cod under the leadership of Fisheries and Oceans Canada? Is that where we are headed?” he asked.
Mr. Cooperman said it is not clear what has happened to the salmon, but B.C. Supreme Court Justice Bruce Cohen, who in 2012 completed an investigation into the collapse of sockeye in the Fraser River system, which includes the Adams River, pointed to an array of problems and made 75 recommendations.
“It could be climate change, it could be fish farms. The Cohen commission recommended all kinds of things but [none were acted on by Ottawa]. Of course, now we have a government that might pay attention, but it could be too late,” Mr. Cooperman said.
Greg Taylor of FishFirst Consulting Ltd., said concerns are also being raised about sockeye returning to B.C. rivers on the north coast because the fish have been so small.
“The Nass River sockeye came in relatively good [numbers] … however, they came in about one pound lighter [on average]. So there’s something going on in the ocean … they are normally about six pounds there, but they were coming in at five pounds. This is unheard of. We’ve never seen those sockeye that size,” he said.
Mr. Taylor said one theory is that hatcheries in Alaska are pumping out so many fish that by the time B.C. sockeye migrate into the Gulf of Alaska, where they feed during early life stages, food is running short.
“Some feel these small fish we are seeing and the poor runs [to the Adams River] … could be found in that cause,” he said.

Sockeye numbers shockingly low
by  Barb Brouwer – Salmon Arm Observer
posted Oct 27, 2015

Expectations were high, but the 2015 late South Thompson sockeye run has been disastrous.

A daily visual observation of late-run sockeye in the Adams River on Oct. 8 revealed only 2,925 fish in the lower Adams River. No late-run sockeye were observed in upper Adams River two days later on Oct. 10. [NOTE – four years ago, 2011 – 148,169, – a very frightening crash this year – and 4 years from now there could be no salmon! – and this is supposed to be the second highest run after the peak run]

Four years ago, late-run salmon were in the millions, sparking hopes of a large return this year. But pre-run estimates of 1.2 million were quickly dropped to 200,000 for the entire Fraser River run – about half of which were expected to enter the South Thompson, with good numbers continuing on to the Little Shuswap, Shuswap Lake and Adams River. Because the numbers turned out to be so low, Fisheries Canada decided to dispense with the intensive tag and re-capture generally used to obtain an accurate count.

Stu Cartwright, acting area director of the federal Fisheries and Oceans Canada for the B.C. Interior, says they believe the less intensive method of visual counting has produced accurate estimates of the number of fish.

“We know there was a lot of pre-spawn mortality in the sockeye and that complicates things four years down the road,” says Cartwright noting that while low water levels and high water temperatures were likely factors, they may not tell the whole story.

“A lot didn’t arrive, that’s the big thing, only 200,000 entered the river… but we won’t have a final number until sometime in the new year.”

Cartwright has happier news about the chinook run that includes the Little Shuswap, Adams, Salmon and Eagle rivers.

“It looks like it will meet or exceed the brood year of 150,000 fish, which we consider to be quite a success,” he says, praising officers and volunteers for their efforts in helping chinook enter the Salmon River. “We would like to see more on the Salmon River; it has a capacity for more.”

                    Anstey Hunakwa Provincial Park photo by Myron Kozak

Click here to watch the video on YouTube: Return to Hunakwa

Clips and stills from two day trips in September 2014 to Hunakwa Lake in Anstey Hunakwa Provincial Park. The video begins with a concise history of how the park was created thanks in part to the efforts of the Shuswap Environmental Action Society (see seas.ca) and the four years of land use planning. Soundtrack is by Sylvain Vallee (see valleemusic.com). A Shuswap Passion production by Jim Cooperman, see shuswappassion.ca.

BIG TREES SAVED – AND OTHER FEATS
The story of the Shuswap Environmental Action Society
Deanna Kawatski
Foreword by Joe Foy

Published by Shuswap Press

ISBN 978-0-9917873-7-1

123 pages, $20 plus $5 for shipping

Send a cheque to:

S.E.A.S.
#3 – 151 Beatty Ave. NW
Salmon Arm, B.C.
V1E 2W4

Foreword by
Joe Foy, National Campaign Director, Wilderness Committee
This book confirms my suspicions about human kind. Not everything that people do is about self-interest. Sometimes people really do devote themselves to the benefit of future generations.
The story of the Shuswap Environmental Action Society is an inspiring saga of regular people making a huge difference—such a huge difference in fact that you can not only read their story in this book, you can see it from outer space! I encourage you to go to Google Earth and have a look at the precious ancient forests that SEAS was able to gain protection for—and to contemplate the ocean of clear cuts that surround them. Think what would have happened if these few brave people had not stood up, spoken out, and held their ground.
I must confess that I especially enjoyed this book because I have worked for the Vancouver-based Wilderness Committee for many years. I know how hard it is to save old-growth trees in a province that has measured its success on how many million two-by-fours it can spew out in a year. It’s fascinating to read of the face-to-face confrontations between Shuswap area environmental activists and logging companies during the 1980s and ’90s, the so-called war in the woods period of BC history.
Contemplating a 1,000-year-old red cedar in a protected park may seem like a peaceful, restful experience these days. But I know that to get that tree protected it took years of tough work, a good number of sleepless nights, and likely some moments of sheer terror for the people that stood up to defend it. This was all done not for the profit in it; it was done because it was the right thing to do.
This book is an important record of what happened during those critical decades when so much of BC’s ancient landscapes were won for future generations—and so much lost to the bulldozer and chainsaw.
Back in the 1970s I had been inspired to become a wilderness activist by reading stories of the fight to protect the forests of the North Cascades that had occurred in Washington State in the ’60s.
Today we are blessed with an impressive number of inspiring books written about the fight to protect BC’s amazing wild forests. Big Trees Saved and Other Feats: The story of the Shuswap Environmental Action Society takes its place among these precious records. And though this book is about what has happened in the past—its real power is in its ability to influence what will happen in the future.
Standing up for nature is hard work. There will be setbacks and losses. There will never be enough information, people, or resources. Some battles will go on for many years. There will be no pay-off, except the comfort of the good fight well fought and the amazing solace of a piece of the wild earth saved.
Much has been accomplished in protecting BC’s natural environment. But so much more remains to be done. In this quest, future generations will need their heroes. This book is for them.

Excerpt:

Jim Cooperman offered the following insight: “Our efforts to secure a moratorium on logging the ancient Seymour rainforest were going nowhere in Salmon Arm, so I scheduled a meeting with Fred Baxter, the forest service regional manager in Kamloops. I knew Fred well from other meetings and my frequent visits to the Kamloops Forest Region offices to meet with staff, especially the ecologist who helped develop the plan for new park proposals. We began the meeting by presenting Fred with a framed 8” X 10” print of the famous photo of the Seymour Giant encircled by supporters. Fred understood the ecological value of the forest, but he was also keenly aware of the investment the company had made to survey the blocks and build roads and landings. Consequently we agreed with the compromise he proposed, to allow for the two blocks to the south to be logged and the heart of the park where the Seymour Giant still stands, to be saved. That was one great day and we will always be grateful to Fred for his good judgment.”

It was smoke from a nearby landfill that originally spurred Shuswap activist Jim Cooperman to speak out on behalf of the local environment.

It was the realization that the massive old-growth trees he was so in awe of were in grave danger of being destroyed through forestry practices of the day that led Cooperman and six others to form the Shuswap Environmental Action Society in 1989.

Twenty-five years later, SEAS is celebrating actions and accomplishments with a book penned by award-winning author Deanna Kawatski: Big Trees Saved And Other Feats – The story of the Shuswap Environmental Action Society.

“I’m very impressed. I think Deanna did an awesome job of telling the story and focusing on the key points, and making it interesting for the readers,” says Cooperman, who points out he wanted a book that would create a lasting legacy for SEAS so future generations will remember the work that went into creating a number of parks.

“Over the years, SEAS’s hard work and dedication has resulted in 25,000 hectares of new parks in the Shuswap, including the Upper Seymour River rainforest, and the magnificent Anstey Arm Hunakwa Lake wilderness area.”

Cooperman is also hoping the book will improve the public’s understanding that these parks exist, and that with greater public awareness more pressure will be put on the government to make it easier for people to access them.

“So few people are aware that they are there, and Anstey-Hunakwa Provincial Park is only accessible by boat,” he says, noting access is possible from the Beach Bay Access Road to Wright Lake. “We want to create a trail from Wright Lake to Hunakwa Lake and we were just up there recently to look at options to improve access.”

Cooperman says the gorgeous Upper Seymour River Provincial Park is 90 kilometres north of Seymour Arm.

“You get into big trees by mountain bike or an hour-long hike from parking,” he says. “Few people, if any, have hiked up to the glacier. It’s pretty incredible to think there is landscape like that in the Shuswap and almost nobody knows about it.”

Cooperman says there’s very little money in the budget for BC Parks.

“You have to get their attention and you’re up against all the other parks,” he says. “If there’s more public pressure, we might actually see more money. Basically zero dollars have been spent on many of the new parks in the northern part of the Shuswap.”

Referring again to the Upper Seymour, Cooperman says visitors have to fight their way through bush to get their canoes in the water. He maintains it  wouldn’t cost a lot of money to create a path.

“It’s critical to improve access; these are pristine areas that needed to be protected to help preserve biodiversity, give species a place to be and we need wild places on the planet,” he says, maintaining conservation has always been an important focus of many agencies. “Parks are key to what it means to be human; we need to spend time in nature. It’s all part of our health and emotional well-being.”

Cooperman laments that huge old-growth trees are not being preserved in many other places in the province.

“If we want to understand how ecosystems work, we have to have the natural forest available for study.”

Thanks to the efforts of SEAS, thousands of hectares of old-growth forest were set aside, and forest management was vastly improved, leading to better protection for non-timber forest values.

In 2008, SEAS rallied to stop a proposed marina and condominium development from being built at the mouth of the Adams River, one of the most significant sockeye salmon spawning rivers in the world.

Cooperman says SEAS changed the map of the Shuswap through the creation of the new parks, and in 2010, the society helped produce the first map of the Shuswap watershed in a poster format.

The book launch for Big Trees Saved and Other Feats – The story of the Shuswap Environmental Action Society is set for 7 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 15 in the hall at First United Church at 450 Okanagan Ave. SE.

The Big Trees Saved book launch will be a celebratory affair with live music, a multi-media presentation, speakers, refreshments, and books for sale.

The musical entertainment will be provided by singer/songwriter and recording artist Sylvain Vallee on keyboards. He will perform a number of songs with an environmental message, including Pipeline, the reggae protest song about the proposed Northern Gateway tar sands pipeline.

Kawatski will also be among the speakers and one who, in her author’s note, explains how she had expressed interest in writing the book only to later wonder what she had done.

“When Jim Cooperman backed his truck up and began to swing box after box – all overflowing with SEAS material – onto my front porch, I was ready to run out the back door. Who in their right mind would invite such chaos into their kitchen?”

But Kawatski sifted through the chaos to produce an interesting and highly readable history of a group that has done so much to protect the Shuswap for upcoming generations.

After the launch, Big Trees Saved will be on sale for $20 at the Observer office and in stores throughout the region. For more information, visit www. seas.ca or phone 250-832-8569 or 250-679-3693.

PRESS RELEASE

B.C. Government wants massive Shuswap mining project to forgo federal review

A massive zinc mine proposed in the upper Adams River drainage is moving into the environment assessment phase and the province of B.C. has requested that the project skip the federal environmental review process (see release below). The Upper Adams River is a sensitive, salmon-bearing watershed and efforts continue to re-vitalize the salmon run which was nearly wiped out nearly one hundred years ago due to a splash dam built by the Adams River Lumber Company. “The proposed processing of the ore at the mine site has the potential to impact both the threatened Bull trout in Oliver Creek and the salmon downstream in the Upper Adams River. We believe that it is imperative that this proposed mine project receive the most stringent review possible,” explained Jim Cooperman, Shuswap Environmental Action Society president. “We urge the federal government to ensure  that this proposed mine receive a federal environmental assessment,” Cooperman added.

    The Ruddock Creek mining project is located high above the Upper Adams River

Although the proposed mine would be underground, the processing of the ore would require the storage of tailings above ground storage and in an alpine lake, which has the potential to pollute watercourses downstream. As well, the mine project is located at a very high elevation where the snowpack is very deep and there are nearby glaciers. Consequently, the potential also exists for problems related to avalanches and snowmelt.

The provincial review process has a history of approving projects that are not environmentally responsible, such as the Prosperity Mine (Fish Lake), which was approved provincially but was turned down twice in the federal review. It is clear that the provincial process is not adequate for a project of this size and scope that has the potential to impact a relatively pristine watershed that is home to salmon and other key species.

SEAS also urges the public to get involved and to use the opportunity to provide comments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency by the June 19th deadline.

Send your letter urging the government to require a federal assessment to RuddockCreek@ceaa-acee.gc.ca

Learn more about the project by downloading and reading the Project Description

Mine review sparks debate

by  Barb Brouwer – Salmon Arm Observer
posted Jun 5, 2014

A request by the province to substitute a federal environmental review of a proposed mine with a single provincial review has raised concerns and differing opinions.

Shuswap Environmental Action Society president Jim Cooperman was given a guided tour in 2008 of the Ruddock Creek zinc mine, high above the headwaters of the Adams River.

“At that point they were going to do all the processing a long way away in an area that didn’t post any environmental risks,” he says. “Since then, they’ve changed the plans.”

While he describes the plan by mine owner Imperial Metals of Vancouver as basically a good one, Cooperman says his main concern is the tailings to be stored there for the first six months of operation going into Light Lake.

Cooperman’s other concern is the fact the mine is located in a heavy snowfall area with a high likelihood  of avalanches, events that he believes could destroy infrastructure and harm the surrounding environment, including Oliver Creek and farther downstream, the Adams River.

Those are all the challenges connected with operating at high elevation and ones that need extreme caution and environmental oversight – from both the province and the federal government, he says.

“The track  record for provincial assessments is that they operate as a rubber stamp,” he says. “As we have seen only too clearly by the approval of the province of Prosperity Mine, which would have destroyed Fish Lake, it was subsequently turned down twice in the federal review process.”

Ramsey Hart of Mining Watch Canada says the non-profit organization was alerted to the province’s request by the Neskonlith Indian Band, which opposes the move because of their traditional use of the area.

He will be asking Ottawa to deny the B.C. government’s request.

“We think federal oversight on key issues is really important due to aboriginal use of the land, potential impacts on fisheries and endangered species – all of which are the responsibility of the federal government,” he says, noting he is also concerned the B.C. timeline is too short at 180 days to do a review and 45 days for a decision to be made, whereas a federal assessment can take a year to two if it is done by a review panel. “We also note that the federal government has held projects to a higher standard.”

But both the government and Imperial Metals say oversight will not be reduced.

“The substituted environmental assessment still covers what must be considered under both a provincial assessment and a federal assessment,” reads a June 3 email from the Ministry of Environment, which maintains substitution allows the assessment process to be conducted more effectively and efficiently. “The province’s businesses, First Nations and communities alike will benefit from the elimination of the duplication involved in having two assessments for a single project, while maintaining strong environmental assessments and aboriginal consultation.”

Steve Robertson, Imperial Metals vice-president corporate affairs, agrees. In responding to Cooperman’s concerns, Robertson says the plan is to minimize “to the extent possible,” the environmental footprint of the mine.

He says the tailings, or leftover rocks, will be mixed with cement and be placed back in the mine. But, he points out, until the mine has been in production for several months, there will be no place to put the tailings.

A dam will be built high on the headwaters of Oliver Creek, right beside the processing plant to contain the initial tailings, Robertson says. Avalanche control will be part of the company’s management plan, both in terms of building infrastructure and control measures, he adds.

Robertson says First Nations concerns are also being addressed.

Comments regarding the mine may be made to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency by the June 19 deadline.

Here is the government notice:

Public Notice
Ruddock Creek Mine Project – Public Comments Invited

May 30, 2014— As part of the strengthened and modernized Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) put in place to support the government’s Responsible Resource Development Initiative, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) must decide whether a federal environmental assessment is required for the proposed Ruddock Creek Mine Project located in British Columbia (B.C.). To assist it in making its decision, the Agency is seeking comments from the public on the project and its potential effects on the environment.

Substitution Request

The Government of B.C. has requested the substitution of the B.C. environmental assessment process for the CEAA 2012 process if it is determined that an environmental assessment is required. The Agency is also seeking comments on this request.

In considering the Government of B.C.’s request, the federal Minister of the Environment must be satisfied, under CEAA 2012, that:

• the process to be substituted will include a consideration of the factors set out in subsection 19(1) of CEAA 2012;
• the public will be given an opportunity to participate in the environmental assessment;
• the public will have access to records in relation to the environmental assessment to enable their meaningful participation;
• at the end of the environmental assessment, a report will be submitted to the Agency;
• the report will be made available to the public; and
• any other conditions the Minister establishes are or will be met.

The Minister would also establish the following additional conditions for this project:

• the involvement of expert federal departments in the B.C. process;
• B.C. meeting the CEAA 2012 365-day time frame for completing the environmental assessment;
• B.C. conducting procedural aspects of Aboriginal consultation; and
• B.C. making available to Aboriginal groups funding provided by the Agency to support consultation during the substituted environmental assessment.

B.C.’s request is in accordance with a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Agency and the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office to enable efficient and timely use of the CEAA 2012 substitution provisions. The MOU  addresses the processes leading to substitution, the conduct of the substituted environmental assessment and associated Aboriginal consultation, and the coordination of decision-making, monitoring and follow-up after the environmental assessment. The MOU and a Backgrounder on substitution under CEAA 2012 are available on the Agency’s website.

Public Comments

Written comments on the need for a federal environmental assessment and on the substitution request must be submitted by June 19, 2014 to:

Ruddock Creek Mine Project
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
410-701 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, British Columbia V7Y 1C6
Telephone: 604-666-2431
Fax: 604-666-6990
RuddockCreek@ceaa-acee.gc.ca

To view a summary of the project description or for more information on the project, the substitution request and the environmental assessment process, visit the Agency’s website (Registry reference number 80072). All comments received will be considered public.

The Agency will post its decision on whether a federal environmental assessment is required on its website. A notice of the Minister’s decision on the request for substitution will also be posted on the Agency’s website if it is determined that a federal environmental assessment is required.

The Proposed Project

Ruddock Creek Mining Corporation is proposing the construction, operation, and decommissioning of a new underground zinc-lead mine located between the headwaters of Ruddock Creek and Oliver Creek in the Scrip Range of the Monashee Mountains, approximately 155 kilometres northeast of Kamloops and 28 kilometres east of Avola, British Columbia. The project, as proposed, would have an ore production capacity of 3,000 tonnes per day over an anticipated mine life of eight years.