DOUGLAS COLLECE LIBRARY
PROHIVES |

THE MUD BAY MARINA CONTROVERSY

In September Alderman Ron Ross of Surrey requested
that the Institute of Environmental Studies examine Stanley
Associates Engineering “Ecological Impact Statement" on the
1,000 boat marina-motel-trailer camp development on the tidal
marsh in Mud Bay proposed by Bold International Realty
Enterprises Ltd. The main criticisms of the proposal are
outlined in the following letter. It should be noted that it.
is not the idea of a marina but the specific location in Mud
Bay which is ecologically and environmentally unsuitable,

lt ISN'T strictly for the birds

 

Sir — Since Surrey Council has again

‘voted in support of a marina develop-

ment in Mud Bay it is necessary to re-
spond to the challenging statements
made by the would-be developers.
Firstly, they claim that their develop-
ment is “for people,” implying that the

preservation of Mud Bay as a sanctuary ,

for marine life and shore birds would
not be beneficial to people. This is sim-
ply not true. At present we have only
one small sanctuary on the foreshore of
the Lower Mainland — at Reifel Island.
Since 1967 thousands of people of all
ages have enjoyed visits there and, at
the same time, have gained an under-
standing of the natural riches contained
in the small remnant of the tidal marsh-
es which once extended for miles up the
valley. Since the building of the dykes
about 70 years ago only a few hundred
yards of marsh remain on the seaward
side. Alderman McKitka was quoted as
saying that, “if we keep worrying about
the birds and the herring pretty soon
they'll be the only ones left.” He can
rest assured that we are in no danger of
being shouldered out of the Fraser Val-
ley by our fish and wildlife. Unfortunate-
ly the opposite is true. However, the al-
derman was quite right when he said,
“we've got to have room for both (wild-
life and people).” In order to do this we
must assess the ecological importance of
areas such as, Mud Bay and relate that
importance to other human needs.

Mud Bay is of greater ecological im-

portance than any area of similar size '

between Point Roberts and the U.S. bor-
der because it is at the confluence of the

two main sources of fresh water, the Ni- _

comek] and Serpentine rivers. Its
islands, hummocks and tidal creeks cre-
ate varied water levels which contain
8reater varieties of plant and marine
animal life, and offer shelter and food
for shorebirds and waterfowl when tides
and storm winds sweep Boundary Bay.
Yet this is what the developers will ob-

literate under parking lots, a marina

and motel, while protesting that “Surrey
Bay Marine Park” is not against the
fish and birds! 2

The second challenge is the would-be
developers’ assertion that there is no
better site for a marina than Mud Bay.
On the basis of the accessibility to open
water and lesser damage to marine
ecological systems the Semiahmoo Indi-
an Reserve waterfront offers a better
site. In contrast Mud Bay is connected
to open water by the narrow channel of
the Nicomekl River extending for two
miles from Lot 495, This is not a suita-
ble site for a marina housing hundreds
of craft. The inevitable result of a mari-
na in this location would be a demand
that the federal government should
widen and dredge the channel to Bound-
ary Bay, and as usual the taxpayer will
be saddled with the cost of the develop-
ers’ short-sighted opportunism.

The only reason that the idea of devel-
oping a marine-motel complex in this un-
suitable location came up at all is be-
cause it is privately owned and any de-
velopment could yield a handsome profit
to the owners and their associates.

Certainly, we need more marinas and
beaches for the people of the Lower

Mainland, but Mud Bay is not the right -

place for such developments. Even its
name makes the point pretty plain!
Finally, there is the developers’ com-
plaint that their proposal is being criti-
cized by “private interests and pressure

groups” whose objections may cost
them a considerable investment. The
truth is that the facts placed before
council in the report from Douglas Col-
lege are freely available to all. How
could the developers fail to notice them?

‘Why are they not aware of the public

Meetings, news reports, biological and
planning studies by government agen-
cies which have repeatedly stressed the
ecological importance of Boundary and
Mud Bays? Where were they when the

_GVRD presented three alternative devel-

opment plans for the bays, all of which
recommended Mud Bay as a wildlife
sanctuary? Did they not read the press
Teports on the studies being conducted
by the provincial government on the fu-
ture wildlife and agriculture in the Mud
Bay area? Did they not wonder why the
Canadian Wildlife Service attempted to
purchase Lot 495 from them several
months ago? These events are not the
moves of “private interests” or “‘pres-
sure groups” but of responsible govern-
ment acting in the public interest.
Of course the developers are well
aware of the issues at stake, but it is
profit not the public interest which moti-
vates them, That is why they are happy”
to present to Surrey Council an “‘envi-
ronmental impact statement” on their
proposal which completely omits the
ecological values of Lot 495 (birds are
mentioned once, marine life and fisher-
ies not at all!) and glibly asserts that
the problem of the narrow Nicomekl
channel will be solved by ‘‘more sophis-
ticated navigation aids,” which “no
doubt will be installed by the appropri-
ate federal authorities’, i.e. the taxpay-
er. So much for the champions of the
people and “‘the best site” for a marina.
Dr. B. A. LEACH
(Director,
Institute of Environmental Studies)
Douglas College,
New Westminster