Panel data provided by Madison's Canadian Lumber Reporter.

Fraser and Nechako Rivers: Where Do We Want To Go?

By 250 News

 Preface: by Ben Meisner

Before you read this article, I would like to take a moment to share some thoughts with you. I have always had a passion for the Nechako River system and the Fraser River, perhaps driven by the fact that being brought up on the prairies any water that flowed was considered, in some way, sacred. I confess however the source of my knowledge is a man who, at just shy of 80, can still talk hunting, talk science to the finest detail or be just one of the guys around a camp fire. He can charm you with his wit, charm you with his passion, but his greatest attribute is his ability to charm you with his knowledge about a river for which I care so dearly.  He is my Nechako River mentor.
He is Dr. Gordon Hartman, born in Fraser Lake and known the world over as one of the most knowledgeable scientists on any fishery. 
He has a Ph.D. in zoology, was the scientist in charge of a major fish-forestry research project,  held senior positions in the provincial government and the Yukon government; Deputy Minister status in the latter until he asked to be relieved of that role.   He has taught at the university level for about six years (University of Guelph and Addis Ababa University) and spent three years in Africa with CIDA for two, and FAO for one. He thinks he has about 80 publications, scientific, or managerial, or philosophical. 
 

Some Thoughts 
by G.F. Hartman

INTRODUCTION 

I read Meisner’s “one man’s opinion”, February 16, in Opinion 250. Meisner is wise to urge caution so that people may be sure about what they get when and if a ‘cold water release’ is installed at Kenney Dam. I was born in Fraser Lake almost 79 years ago. I remember the great things that were supposed to happen around the area when the Alcan project was started in the very early ‘50s. As a “dissident” scientist I made a presentation to the B.C.U.C. panel. Much later, I participated in the difficult initial attempts to establish a broadly based ‘Nechako Watershed Council’. 

Recently, I have, with co-authors, written chapters in books that look to the future sustainability of salmon in the Pacific Northwest (Hartman et al 2000, 2006). A colleague and I recently wrote/edited a book on the effects of forestry activities on fish, worldwide (Northcote and Hartman 2004). In doing these things, I have come to have grave concerns about the long term future of many of the salmon populations in B.C. and the rest of the Pacific Northwest. 

The experience of looking at salmon issues broadly, e.g., the whole Fraser River system, and thinking in terms of multiple decades, has caused me to suggest that we consider not just the Nechako River situation, but the whole Fraser River future. The issues go far beyond Alcan and its present corporate agenda. They also go beyond the immediate responses of the Nechako Watershed Council. I think that Ben Meisner was encouraging readers to think that way. I would urge first, that people think about the cold water release in terms of the well-being of the whole Nechako, and second about the complex of challenges in looking after the whole Fraser River system.

MANAGING THE NECHAKO – STUART SYSTEMS 

Future problems for Stuart system sockeye populations and Nechako Chinook involve Alcan’s excessive water abstraction, climate change (in a large measure an ultimate consequence of global population growth and industrial development), extensive insect outbreaks, widespread clear-cutting in the basins, and greedy fishery interception. Programs for Nechako River cooling, right to the confluence with the Fraser River, must be part of a complex of broader strategies to sustain the salmon runs in the face of these changes. 

Given this, the installation of a cold-water release must not simply be the excuse for Alcan to release the minimum volume of the coldest water possible with the sole purpose of meeting a temperature target just upstream from the confluence with the Stuart River. The facility must be operated to provide a large volume of water that is cool enough to influence the Nechako River temperature regime all the way to Prince George. 

If a small volume, of coldest water possible, is released to meet a temperature target above the Stuart River, there will be a steeply increasing temperature gradient downstream along the river. The heating effect of a stream, by the sun, is dependant on surface to volume relationships in the channel. The lower the volume, the higher the surface to volume ratio, and the faster the heating effect. The Nechako River will not be good fish habitat if upstream sections are very cold, and downstream sections are just below the set temperature maximum. The downstream temperature gradient would be less steep, and the cooling effect would extend further, if a large volume of moderately cold water was released. 

The flow regime in the Nechako River should, as much as possible, mimic that which was there before damming. The life histories of all fish in the river are tuned to the ‘natural’ flow regime of the river. A sudden slug of cold water, released in late July and through part of August can not substitute for the normal seasonal flow peak of May – June. Also, before any decisions are made about the operation of a cold water release, people should understand how the ground water hydrological system functioned before the river was dammed. What flow regime will be required to maintain ground water levels and well function along the river? Are water levels in wells being sustained now? 

Alcan and both governments should pay for and install a coldwater release to be operated for the benefits of fish and people in the Nechako valley. The release should not be simply operated such that Alcan can ‘harvest’ the use of more water, but rather so that fish and people in the valley get a better deal. If everything was stopped tomorrow, Alcan would have had little to complain about after 50 years of ridiculously cheap power. 

I am well aware that Alcan has its options for water use set down firmly in ‘deals’ with government starting back in 1949. However, when or if the energy is no longer used to smelt aluminum, and when or if the mainstay of economic survival is cut off in Kitimat, all bets should be off and the whole Alcan deal should be re-done. It should be re-done with a clear appreciation of the changing conditions I the region and the options to respond to them. To my detractors, I do understand how difficult this might be. Notwithstanding this, we should remember that the foundation for the Alcan deal was laid about 55 years ago. Times have changed. 



("freckled landscape" courtesy Google Earth)

RISKS TO FISH BEYOND THE ALCAN PROJECT IN THE UPPER FRASER BASIN 

Climate is changing with potential effects on snow-packs, river thermal regimes, and fish. I have not seen analysis of such future impacts for the upper Fraser system, however, I would refer readers to publications that indicate the pattern of change further south in the Pacific Northwest of USA (Anonymous 2004, Service 2004). Mountain pine beetle outbreaks, related primarily to more moderate winter temperatures, now stretch from near Clinton to Fort Nelson. In addition to the beetle damage, clear-cuts dot the landscape in the thousands across the whole upper Fraser and Nechako basins. For anyone who questions this, I suggest they bring up Google Earth and look at the remarkable frequency and extent of the cutting that has gone on during the past 55 years. It is a ‘freckle-faced’ landscape, but with 40 ha freckles! 

I do not point out these changes with specific predictions of their effects. The critical reality is that we must understand that the changes are occurring, that we should develop some strategies to respond to them, and that such responses should include the way we build and operate a cold water release. I have listed these things as a complex of upper Fraser River basin management issues which go beyond Alcan. Alcan’s response must not be allowed to be an impediment to overall planning and implementation of such plans for the region. 

From the perspective of salmon, water temperatures may be a concern in other situations in addition to those in the Nechako River. Early Stuart River sockeye are represented by a complex of about 35 populations of fish that spawn in headwater tributaries of Trembleur and Takla lakes, and Middle River. They are susceptible to high discharge conditions at Hell’s Gate, and, more recently, to high water temperatures (Levy 2006).
These fish spawn in the tributaries in early August (Macdonald et al. 1998). Their development is far along by October. At warm water temperatures and consequent accelerated development yolk sac reserves may run out leaving the fish to starve to death before emergence (Scrivener and Anderson 1994). This particular aspect of the biology of early Stuart sockeye salmon makes them vulnerable to logging that is too extensive and invasive of stream riparian zones. In addition to this, if extensive clear-cutting is able to increase ground-water temperatures, and hence the environment in which salmon eggs develop, there may be impacts that are dependant on rate and extent of cutting. The appropriate research, to guide planners in this latter regard, has not been done. DFO has abandoned any meaningful research that might elucidate such matters. Indeed, the Department has ceased literally all research on the effects of forestry on fish.

WHAT IS THE FUTURE FOR THE WHOLE FRASER SYSTEM? 

I will make the unpleasant suggestion that if we keep on doing as we have in lower parts of the Fraser River basin, we will lose most of the salmon populations there within six or seven decades, perhaps sooner. This is a very clear reflection of the pattern further south. It has been projected that human population numbers will reach sixty million in the region north of Portland, but centered primarily in “SeaVan”, a huge urbanized area stretching from Seattle to Vancouver (Lackey and Lach 2006). Given this level of population growth (primarily of urban people, most of whom don’t understand the complex environmental needs of salmon, and most of whom don’t care), salmon won’t count for much against huge future requirements for electrical energy. We are moving past ‘peak oil’ production. That source of energy will be scarce and costly. If the air conditioners start to ‘brown out’ along Howe and Granville Streets, the salmon had better not be in the way of keeping them going! I have the serious concern that, hidden deep and not openly expressed in the upper levels of political and corporate structures, there is the view that salmon are an impediment to “progress”. This sentiment may pervade the thinking of many ordinary people too. 

Beyond electricity needs, the ecological footprint of such huge populations will extend deeply into the interior of the province. Assimilation space for wastes, domestic water needs, forest product requirements, recreational use, agricultural impacts, etc, will impose impacts far beyond the streets and condominiums. Readers who doubt the ‘ecological footprint’ effect should read some of the works of Professor William Rees, e.g., (Rees, W. and M. Wackernagel 1996).
I have used a population projection, and painted a bleak picture for salmon, river futures, and by implication many other values that people may cherish in B.C. I have added the brief comments about projections that can affect the whole Fraser River system. Projections are not statements about where we will definitely go, but rather they are a measure of the direction in which we are pointed. We currently add about 50,000 people per year to the landscape of B.C. Such numbers, if continually expanding, will affect the whole province, Nechako valley included. We are on our way, but where to, and for how long? 

I have written as I have, because across the different societal and geographic parts of the province, we face difficult and inter-locking problems and challenges. The issues of importance for the Cheslatta people, the development and operation of a cold-water release, the management of land and forest across the upper parts of the Fraser basin, and the whole pattern of growth and land use in the total Fraser basin influence each other back and forth. People must think about how these issues fit together and how the whole should be considered when they deal with the parts. These affect not only the future of salmon, but a multitude of other things that will determine what the province will be like for our children and grand-children. 

The people who study global systems tell us that we are reaching a point at which we are using up the planet’s resources and stressing global support systems. Sixty percent of the ecosystem services that support life on earth are being degraded or used unsustainably (Anonymous 2005). In B.C. we still have some slack if we make ‘future-thinking’ decisions. Future-thinking decisions do not, however, involve having Alcan’s objectives dominate the use of the Nechako. They also, do not involve an endless push down the road for ‘more and bigger’ of what we have done in the past. Perhaps future-thinking decisions will have to be set in a context of totally new concepts of progress. Perhaps they will be founded on totally new attitudes about our relationship with the vulnerable natural systems that sustain us and a myriad of other living things. I have gathered together the threads of a number of such ideas. In doing so I hope that I may have helped to get people to think about such situations as the Nechako issue as a part of a mosaic of challenges to be dealt with in a holistic context.







Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home