Created by: Hermann Bruns Mara, BC hbruns@live.ca Shuswap River needs Powerboat Regulation! Presented to Transport Canada via Coalition Navigation June 28th, 2017 Created by: Hermann Bruns Mara, BC hbruns@live.ca

Geographical Description The Shuswap River is part of the Fraser basin and is itself an important Spring and Sockeye salmon spawning area. The river traverses approximately 150 km of forested, mountainous terrain, two large lakes (Sugar & Mabel), and fertile agricultural valleys before flowing into Mara Lake, a tributary of Shuswap Lake.

Shuswap River delta into Mara Lake

Shuswap River flowing through the agricultural community of Mara

High ecological values include: - very high species diversity - extensive salmon spawning areas - several threatened species

Recreation Values Waters ranging from Class I to IV provide a wide diversity of non-motorized recreation opportunities from whitewater rafting & kayaking to beginner canoeing, rowing, and stand-up paddle-boarding or just swimming and floating.

Unfortunately, unregulated powerboat use is diminishing ecological & non-motorized recreational values

Wake from 3-4 thousand powerboats passing this spot each summer washed the soil out from underneath the grassy bank

Even cedar trees are not immune to the erosive power of boat wake

History of attempts to regulate powerboats on the Shuswap River 1994: Residents became concerned about high-speed powerboat impacts: - wake-induced shoreline erosion - safety for non-motorized recreational users - high noise levels from boat traffic Applied for a 10hp motor size restriction and discovered that the - environmental and social concerns were not considered - safety assessment was the prime factor but lacked defined objective parameters The experience left deep divisions in the community while unregulated power boating continues to this day. Powerboats continue to legally travel the river at unlimited speed, with no limits to noise, and no regard for their wake – even generating extra large wake for the newer sport of wake-boarding.

2009. A group of residents approach the Regional District of the North 2009 A group of residents approach the Regional District of the North Okanagan (RDNO) with broad concerns about the lack of coordinated management of the Shuswap River by the many responsible provincial and federal government agencies 2010 RDNO initiates Shuswap Watershed Sustainability planning process involving citizen representatives, relevant government agencies, and several public meetings. Three research studies were funded to assess river habitat capability and measure erosion. Transport Canada did not participate. 2014 RDNO unveils Shuswap River Watershed Sustainability Plan One of many broad strategies reads: For the purpose of improving non-motorised recreational opportunities, engage the community to pursue all available regulatory options to establish boating regulations as follows; • No wake zone between Mara Lake and Baxter Bridge. • Non-motorised watercraft zone between Baxter Bridge to Shuswap Falls.

2015. RDNO initiated public consultation for VORR application under 2015 RDNO initiated public consultation for VORR application under Transport Canada (TC) consisting of: • Zone 1: Mara Lake upstream to the Baxter Bridge – vessel engine size limit of 10 Horse power. • Zone 2: Baxter Bridge upstream to Mabel Lake – no motorized vessels. • Zone 3: Mouth of Mid Shuswap River at Mabel Lake South upstream to the Shuswap Falls – no motorized vessel This became a very polarizing debate with many Alberta boaters getting involved resulting in another stalemate. Unregulated powerboating continues….. 2017 RDNO engages a consultant to conduct a Shuswap River Motorized Vessel Management Mediation Process. - 4 pro-motor representatives - 5 pro-river representatives This process is proving very frustrating because the pro-motor reps know that Transport Canada is protecting them in maintaining the status quo by requiring broad community support for any VORR application. As long as pro-motor reps can continue to extend the conflict, TC may do nothing. So there is no incentive to negotiate a resolution.

What is lacking? 1. Minimum federal standards regulating power boat use that: - recognize and protect the high ecological values of rivers - prevent wake impacts on erodible river shorelines and riparian habitat - minimize power boat noise exposure for shoreline users and residents - improve safety for non-motorized recreation by significantly reducing speeds - respect esthetic qualities and nature experience sought by non-motorized users - promote public policy directions toward active transportation and recreation - support the drive to reduce GHG emissions in all aspects of Canadian life 2. Accessible and flexible regulation options for motorized recreation. The current model of having to pass a federal regulation to implement a simple speed limit on a river is very cumbersome and costly (RDNO has spent over $500,000) especially when compared to how hunting and fishing are regulated (changing annually in response to wildlife populations and public perceptions). 3. Provincial and regional government ability to create zoning for recreation on water bodies. Recreation not only represents an economic opportunity for rural communities but can also reflect the needs, goals, and desires of residents of how to live on the land - especially First Nations. Having the ability to establish zoning for recreation on rivers and lakes would help rural communities realize economic, environmental, and cultural goals.

Rivers: Ecological arteries or play surface for mechanized recreation?

Next generation human interaction with rivers?