Implications of Dam Removal at Jordan River
By Dawson Kern
Keywords:
Summary
Jordan River is on the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada and feeds into the Juan De Fuca Strait. Presently the river has three dams, the main Jordan River Diversion Dam, the Elliot Dam and the Bear Creak Dam. The area around Jordan River was industrialized by settlers in the late 19th century with the logging industry. The dams along the Jordan River were constructed in 1911. The Sunro Copper Mine portal was completed in 1956 along the banks of the Jordan River and that same year populations of Coho, Chum and Pink Salmon were observed to have a drastic decline in their populations. The salmon run became extinct by 1971 following the adverse industrial impacts placed upon the Jordan River. The most ambitious solution to restore to a point of pre-industrial time in Jordan River would be the direct removal of the Diversion and Elliot Dams.
|
Photo 1. Jordan River Dam. Photo Source: https://45292581-579347109595343600.preview.editmysite.com/uploads/4/5/2/9/45292581/657914d7-7a1b-4f12-b291-ca6514f50e9e_orig.jpg
|
Ecological geneology
Jordan River is on the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada, and feeds into the Juan De Fuca Strait. Jordan River resides within the traditional territories of the Pacheedaht Nation, which is one of several nations of the Nuu-chah-nulth peoples. For time immemorial what is now known as Jordan River was managed by the Pacheedaht Nation’s ways of knowing. Jordan River presently has three dams. The main Jordan River Diversion Dam was one of the largest hydroelectric dams built on Vancouver Island when it was constructed in 1911. The Diversion Dam and the Bear Creak Dam form two reservoirs that feed water downstream to the Elliot Dam through a tunnel and penstock. The Jordan River generating station has a generating capacity of 170MW (BC Hydro 2024.) that was last upgraded in 1971 to a peaking plant. A peaking plant refers to a hydroelectric dam that is only operated during times of peak energy demand. The area around Jordan River has settler origins since the late 19th century in the logging industry. The logging industry in Jordan River is presently managed by Pacheedaht Anderson Timber Holdings (PATH) but was previously logged by Vancouver-based Western Forest Products before the 2010 acquisition of the Tree Farm License (TFL) by PATH (Pacheedaht Andersen Timber Holdings Limited Partnership, n,d). There is a timber dry land sort at the mouth of the estuary managed by PATH. Jordan River has not only been influenced by the timber industry but also the mining industry. Approximately 3km above the mouth of the river situated is the Sunro Copper Mine. The mine has since closed in 1977 after suffering a collapse in the mine that was underneath the river in the late 1960s (Rudisuela 2022). The mine continues to leach contaminants into the river affecting the water quality of the river (Burt & Hill 2015).
Populations of Coho, Chum, and Pink Salmon were observed to have a drastic decline in 1956 when the mine portal was completed (Burt & Hill 2015) and the populations were extirpated by 1971 when the dam was upgraded to a peaking plant (Burt & Hill 2015). Salmon provides essential ecosystem services to the river they spawn at. Salmon provides a food source for both humans and animals and upon consumption provide nutrient enrichment with large stores of marine nitrogen isotope to the terrestrial ecosystem. (Hocking & Reynolds 2011). With the industrial disturbances on Jordan River these ecosystem services provide by salmon have been annihilated. Presently Jordan River is a designed ecosystem that is entirely outside of its historic range as a functioning salmon bearing river. |
Figure 2: Jordan River Dam historical development
|
present tense
Presently a barrier for restoration at Jordan River is the poor water quality due to the copper mine. The concentration of dissolved copper contaminants in the river from 2005 to 2008 was 20 times higher than the provincial three-microgram standard (Rudisuela 2022). In 2008 BC Hydro began fish flow releases of water from the Diversion and Elliot dam which lowered the level of contamination in the river but remained well above the standard (Rudisuela 2022). The river was deemed clean by the provincial government in 1993 and further inspections of the water quality were halted. It was not until the University of Victoria Environmental Law Center was approached to find a party responsible for cleaning up Sunro Copper Mine site. (Rudisuela 2022) that greater action ensued for restoration at Jordan River.
The University of Victoria Environmental Law Center conducted research to find an existing company with legal liability for the mine; the original Sunro Copper Mine company no longer exists (Rudisuela 2022). The Environmental Law Center found Teck Resources Ltd. held liability for the mine through a chain of acquiring past mining companies (Rudisuela 2022) in 2012. At this time Western Forest Products still owned the land so they, too, were also liable for the cleanup of the site. Presently, the land is owned by Forebay Holdings, which purchased the land from Western Forest Products in 2021 (Rudisuela 2022). Interested parties to the site comprise of Forebay Holdings, Teck Resources Ltd, PATH, and the Pacheedaht Nation. In 2015 a restoration plan for the anadromous ranges (reaches of the river used by salmon) of Jordan River was prepared for the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program by D.W. Burt and G. Hill. After BC Hydro started fish water flow releases in 2008 the quantity and quality of fish habitat has improved and habitats along the lower river are starting to replenish (Burt & Hill 2015). Burt & Hill identified eight areas for restoration to improve adult fish passage and suitable areas for spawning; four of those areas are above the tailrace of the power plant, (see Figure 1) indicating the hydroelectric infrastructure a significant barrier to fish populations. In 2017 new gravel and a spawning platform were added below the power plant as per Burt & Hills restoration plan but as of 2021 when Burt last checked on the site about half the gravel remained (Rudisuela 2022). Burt goes on to state that BC Hydro does not undertake any gravel monitoring at Jordan River and that Forebay Holdings has not been granting access to the land (Rudisuela 2022). Restoration efforts are currently “dead in the water” (Rudisuela 2022). |
Figure 1: Overview map of lower Jordan River restoration plan and the eight sites identified (Burt & Hill 2015)
|
future trajectory
Political and economic factors have halted restoration at Jordan River and significant changes are needed for this river to host a salmon run again. The most ambitious action would removal of the powerplant and the Elliot, and the Diversion dams, which would close to reflecting the pre-industrial hydrology of the river. The Bear Creek dam does not need to be removed as it forms its own reservoir that is not connected to the Jordan River hydrologic system topographically. Above the tailrace of the powerplant, the current height of the dammed river has one low flow barrier and one complete barrier to fish migration (see Figure 1).
Globally there is an increasing interest in dam removals as an effort for restoration and rewilding (Rewilding Europe 2022). Rewilding can be defined as an ecological restoration concept that wants to drive/promote the natural recovery of the ecosystem. Rewilding has a greater rate of success than single-driver approaches in ecological restoration n (Rideout et al 2021). In 2021 alone 239 dams were removed across Europe (Rewilding Europe, 2022). Across the Juan de Fuca Strait, the Elwha River dam was removed in 2011 (Shaffer et al 2017), making it one of the largest dam decommission projects. The Elwha River dam is an excellent local example to follow as a restoration effort. Salmon returned to the Elwha River within just one season. While dam removals offer impressive ecological solution there are more factors at play than just salmon returning. When the Elwha River dam was removed large amounts of sediment were transported to the nearshore estuary due to an increase in river discharge (Shaffer et al 2017). This influx of sediment to the nearshore ecosystem grew the estuary river habitat by approximately 80 acres (Shaffer et al 2017). The Elwha River mouth which used to be estuarine in nature changed to a non-tidally influenced lower river (Shaffer et al 2017). The increased estuary habitat can increase ecological function and habitat. (Shaffer et al 2017). Prior to any removal of dams at Jordan River, it is paramount to consider all the ecological functions of the river and estuary that will be affected. A dam removal is not something that can be done and simply walked away from, an adaptive management framework is paramount to a dam removal's success (Shaffer et al 2017). Pre-dam removal continuous monitoring of both the river and estuary must be conducted. With the combined effort of dam removal, the cleanup of contaminants from the Sunro Copper Mine, and an adaptive management framework, Jordan River could once again function at pre-industrial levels. |
Dam locations on Vancouver Island
|
References
BC Hydro. (2024). Energy in BC. BC Hydro - Power smart. https://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/operations/our-facilities/vancouver-island.html
Burt, D. W., & Hill, G. (2015, June). A Restoration Plan for Fish Habitat Within Anadromous Reaches of the Jordan River. https://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/acat/documents/r49039/14.JOR.01_1443102591106_3102436162.pdf
Hocking, M. D., & Reynolds, J. D. (2011). Impacts of Salmon on Riparian Plant Diversity. Science, 331(6024), 1609-1612. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201079
Pacheedaht Andersen Timber Holdings Limited Partnership. (n.d.). Welcome to Pacheedaht Andersen Timber Holdings Limited Partnership. https://pathlp.ca/
Rewilding Europe. (2022, May 16). Record-breaking year for dam removal shows growing interest in river restoration. https://rewildingeurope.com/blog/record-breaking-year-for- dam-removal-shows-growing-interest-in-river-restoration/
Rideout, N. K., Wegscheider, B., Kattilakoski, M., McGee, K. M., Monk, W. A., & Baird, D. J. (2021). Rewilding watersheds: using nature's algorithms to fix our broken rivers. Marine and Freshwater Research, 72(8), 1118-1124. https://doi.org/10.1071/mf20335
Rudisuela, J. (2022, March 8). The jordan river was once brimming with salmon, until three industries changed it forever. Capital Daily. https://www.capitaldaily.ca/news/jordan-river-salmon-industry
Shaffer, J. A., Higgs, E., Walls, C., & Juanes, F. (2017). Large-scale Dam Removals and Nearshore Ecological Restoration: Lessons Learned from the Elwha Dam Removals. Ecological Restoration, 35(2), 87-101. https://doi.org/10.3368/er.35.2.87
Burt, D. W., & Hill, G. (2015, June). A Restoration Plan for Fish Habitat Within Anadromous Reaches of the Jordan River. https://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/acat/documents/r49039/14.JOR.01_1443102591106_3102436162.pdf
Hocking, M. D., & Reynolds, J. D. (2011). Impacts of Salmon on Riparian Plant Diversity. Science, 331(6024), 1609-1612. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201079
Pacheedaht Andersen Timber Holdings Limited Partnership. (n.d.). Welcome to Pacheedaht Andersen Timber Holdings Limited Partnership. https://pathlp.ca/
Rewilding Europe. (2022, May 16). Record-breaking year for dam removal shows growing interest in river restoration. https://rewildingeurope.com/blog/record-breaking-year-for- dam-removal-shows-growing-interest-in-river-restoration/
Rideout, N. K., Wegscheider, B., Kattilakoski, M., McGee, K. M., Monk, W. A., & Baird, D. J. (2021). Rewilding watersheds: using nature's algorithms to fix our broken rivers. Marine and Freshwater Research, 72(8), 1118-1124. https://doi.org/10.1071/mf20335
Rudisuela, J. (2022, March 8). The jordan river was once brimming with salmon, until three industries changed it forever. Capital Daily. https://www.capitaldaily.ca/news/jordan-river-salmon-industry
Shaffer, J. A., Higgs, E., Walls, C., & Juanes, F. (2017). Large-scale Dam Removals and Nearshore Ecological Restoration: Lessons Learned from the Elwha Dam Removals. Ecological Restoration, 35(2), 87-101. https://doi.org/10.3368/er.35.2.87