"There are safer places to get gravel"

[chris gadsden]

We continue to work on this file and some of us from the Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee will meet this week with Conservative MP John Cummins in his Delta office.

A bit of a drive for me but I think it is important to keep working on this important issue on The Fraser River.

[chris gadsden]

Friday's Vancouver Sun
B.C. to continue gravel removal, despite salmon deaths
  By Larry Pynn , Vancouver SunNovember 12, 2009 7:23 PM
  StoryPhotos ( 1 )
  The British Columbia government plans to remove gravel from the Fraser River this winter despite a federal auditor general report that found the extraction has killed up to 2.25 million young pink salmon.Photograph by: Ward Perrin, Vancouver SunVANCOUVER — The British Columbia government plans to remove gravel from the Fraser River this winter despite a federal auditor general report that found the extraction has killed up to 2.25 million young pink salmon.


Dwayne Meredith, manager of strategic mitigation programs with Emergency Management B.C., said he expects gravel to be extracted from January to March due to flooding concerns while B.C. and Ottawa negotiate a new long-term agreement.


"We have every anticipation of removing gravel," he said in an interview from Victoria.


Rebecca Reid, regional director of habitat and enhancement for the federal Fisheries Department, said the new agreement will address issues such as monitoring gravel removal, consulting with First Nations and communications between the two governments.


The Fraser River Gravel Removal Stewardship Committee urged Ottawa on Thursday not to enter into any long-term agreements with B.C., pending the results of a commission of inquiry, announced by the federal Conservatives last week, into the collapse of Fraser River sockeye runs.


Committee spokesman Otto Langer, a former Fisheries Department biologist, said that Ottawa once prosecuted people for gravel removal but now promotes the activity.


But Meredith insisted gravel is being removed to reduce flood risk and not to access aggregate to be used in construction.


"This is all about public safety," he said. "All the gravel removal . . . is under the flood mandate. I definitely see and understand the benefits."


The report last spring by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development on behalf of the auditor general found that in 2006, improper construction of a causeway for accessing gravel resulted in a side channel drying up, exposing salmon nests and resulting in the loss of up to 2.25 million young pink salmon.


It also found evidence of excessive removal of gravel, destruction of habitat and mining outside the approved area — events that Ottawa failed to prosecute.

[chris gadsden]

Expanded story that ran today.



Gravel mining to resume on Fraser River
 Provincial experts cite safety concerns, but federal auditor-general warns mining can take a toll on salmon population
 By Larry Pynn, Vancouver SunNovember 13, 2009
  StoryPhotos ( 1 )
  An aluminum fishing boat is crushed against a temporary bridge support used for access to gravel in the Fraser.Photograph by: Ward Perrin, Vancouver Sun files, Vancouver SunThe B.C. government plans to resume gravel removal on the lower Fraser River this winter despite the findings of a federal auditor-general report that concluded previous removals killed up to 2.25 million young pink salmon, occurred without full authorization and did little to reduce the flood risk.

Dwayne Meredith, manager of strategic mitigation programs with Emergency Management B.C., said he expects gravel to be extracted in January to March while B.C. and Ottawa negotiate a new long-term agreement.

"We have every anticipation of removing gravel," he said in an interview from Victoria.

Meredith said specific sites have not yet been decided, but confirmed that first nations would be responsible for the gravel removal and arranging their own contractors for the work.

Rebecca Reid, regional director of habitat and enhancement for federal fisheries, said in Vancouver that the new agreement being negotiated with the province will address issues such as monitoring of gravel removal, consulting with first nations and communications between the two senior governments.

A five-year federal-provincial agreement signed in 2004 provided for the annual removal of 500,000 cubic metres from Hope to Mission during the first two years and 420,000 cubic metres per year in the last three years, with a one-year extension to Mar. 31, 2010, while a new long-term agreement is negotiated.

The actual removals fell short of the maximum allowable: 149,820 cubic metres in 2005, 273,000 in 2006, 25,000 in 2007, 400,100 in 2008, and 293,615 in 2009.

A coalition known as Fraser River Gravel Removal Stewardship Committee urged Ottawa on Thursday not to conclude any long-term agreements with B.C. pending the results of a commission of inquiry, announced by the federal Conservatives last week, into the collapse of Fraser River sockeye runs.

Committee spokesman Otto Langer, a former federal fisheries biologist, lamented that Ottawa once prosecuted people for gravel removal but now promotes the activity without obeying its own no-net-less-loss habitat policy.

Meredith insisted gravel is being removed to reduce flood risk on the lower Fraser and not to access aggregate to fuel construction in the region.

"This is all about public safety," he said. "All the gravel removal ... is under the flood mandate. I definitely see and understand the benefits.

"You can only build the dikes so high before ... it just becomes engineeringly impossible to do so any further."

Of past fish deaths blamed on gravel removal, he said: "If you have one unfortunate event occurring in the past it doesn't mean it will continue in the future. We move forward with the best information."

The report last spring by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development on behalf of the auditor-general found that in 2006 improper construction of a causeway for accessing gravel at Big Bar, near the Agassiz-Rosedale Bridge, resulted in a side channel drying up, exposing salmon nests and resulting in the loss of up to 2.25 million young pink salmon.

The report found that "adequate information on fish stocks to assess project impacts was lacking for a number of the ministerial authorizations for gravel removal."

It also found evidence of excessive removal of gravel, destruction of habitat and mining outside the approved area -- events that Ottawa failed to prosecute.

John Werring, an aquatic habitat specialist with the David Suzuki Foundation, called on the province to be more open about its gravel extraction plans. He added that while some site-specific removals may be helpful in reducing the flood threat, that's not been the case to date in a program mainly interested in aggregate.

"It's for aggregate reasons, I'm absolutely convinced of it," said Werring.

The gravel extraction operation is also being criticized for allowing temporary bridge supports to remain in the river as a way of accessing gravel at Spring Bar, between Hope and Agassiz near Seabird Island.

Meredith said the pilings, installed in January 2007, have the required permits from Transport Canada under the federal Navigable Waters Protection Act.

When The Vancouver Sun accompanied a federal fisheries enforcement helicopter patrol last year, an aluminum fishing boat could be seen crushed and wrapped around the upstream side of one of the supports.

Werring said he believes the boat belonged to aboriginal fishermen and that no one was injured in the incident, but said he continues to have concerns about the dangers posed by the structure.

lpynn@vancouversun.com


 

[troutbreath]

It's almost too much to believe I guess with the BC Liberals and the National Conservative Party it's time to push this through for some of their financial backers. Isn't doing anyone else much good especially the fish in that area.

That picture:
An aluminum fishing boat is crushed against a temporary bridge support used for access to gravel in the Fraser

I wonder whose boat that is ? Maybe someone working there unsafely? Hope I don't hook that thing sometime.

[chris gadsden]

It's almost too much to believe I guess with the BC Liberals and the National Conservative Party it's time to push this through for some of their financial backers. Isn't doing anyone else much good especially the fish in that area.

That picture:
An aluminum fishing boat is crushed against a temporary bridge support used for access to gravel in the Fraser

I wonder whose boat that is ? Maybe someone working there unsafely? Hope I don't hook that thing sometime.

From reports we got it was a F/N boat being used for drift netting.

[chris gadsden]

From Question Period today in Victoria

GRAVEL EXTRACTION
FROM FRASER RIVER

V. Huntington: Last week emergency management B.C. announced that the province will proceed with gravel extraction along unspecified portions of the lower Fraser River from January to March 2010. The province has insisted that this is all about public safety and reducing the flood risk. However, a former regional director with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has stated that "there is a general lack of information that demonstrates that gravel removal has or will reduce flood hazard." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Similarly, the federal Environment Commissioner said in a report earlier this year that engineering and scientific studies concluded there was no reduction in the flood profile after gravel removal and that gravel removal would not significantly affect the potential for flooding. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

My question is to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. What scientific studies has his ministry used or conducted to justify the removal of gravel for flood protection measures? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Interjection.

Hon. B. Penner: Thank you, Hon. Member, and thank you for the intervention from the member for Delta North. The B.C. government is committed to flood protection, and certainly, given the recent weather events, the last 72 hours, we can see that our investments are paying dividends. It's important that we continue to maintain our flood protection programs in British Columbia, but we do it in a balanced way. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In the 1990s we know that the other party did put a moratorium on gravel removal and walked away from a federal-provincial funding program for flood protection in the province. Our government ran on a commitment to restore our protection programs and to return to a well-managed, environmentally-sustainable and balanced gravel removal program in order to advance flood protection. That has been our commitment, and that has been what we've delivered. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[End of question period.]

[fisherforever]

What a joke if they remove more gravel, its just a cash grab. If they want flood protection dredge the lower Fraser from just above Mission to the mouth thats were all the sediment is dropping out of suspension and settling. I believe they quit dredging back in the 80's, time to bring it back instead of lining Liberal supporters pockets!

[Eagleye]

From Question Period today in Victoria

GRAVEL EXTRACTION
FROM FRASER RIVER

V. Huntington: Last week emergency management B.C. announced that the province will proceed with gravel extraction along unspecified portions of the lower Fraser River from January to March 2010. The province has insisted that this is all about public safety and reducing the flood risk. However, a former regional director with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has stated that "there is a general lack of information that demonstrates that gravel removal has or will reduce flood hazard." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Similarly, the federal Environment Commissioner said in a report earlier this year that engineering and scientific studies concluded there was no reduction in the flood profile after gravel removal and that gravel removal would not significantly affect the potential for flooding. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

My question is to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. What scientific studies has his ministry used or conducted to justify the removal of gravel for flood protection measures? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Interjection.

Hon. B. Penner: Thank you, Hon. Member, and thank you for the intervention from the member for Delta North. The B.C. government is committed to flood protection, and certainly, given the recent weather events, the last 72 hours, we can see that our investments are paying dividends. It's important that we continue to maintain our flood protection programs in British Columbia, but we do it in a balanced way. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In the 1990s we know that the other party did put a moratorium on gravel removal and walked away from a federal-provincial funding program for flood protection in the province. Our government ran on a commitment to restore our protection programs and to return to a well-managed, environmentally-sustainable and balanced gravel removal program in order to advance flood protection. That has been our commitment, and that has been what we've delivered. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
 
[End of question period.]

  What about the studies?!?!! Honourable B . Penner !   

[skaha]

--I have included this article from Kelowna news paper... our own little gravel extraction project in the Major kokanee spawning area for Okanagan lake. For those of you who are not familiar... recreational kokanee fishing has only recently been allowed with a limited quota opening, after being shut down for over 10 years due to lack of a healthy sustaining population. 




Storm clouds gathering over the environment ministry

By Judie Steeves
Kelowna Capital News
November 20, 2009
http://www.bclocalnews.com/okanagan_similkameen/kelownacapitalnews/opinion/70602472.html

There’s a storm brewing amongst outdoors people in the province’s ‘heartlands.’

And, it’s threatening to blow the provincial government off the map.

It’s not about any one thing. Instead it’s been mounting gradually, beginning with a little tempest in one part of the province about one issue; then a squall in another corner about another issue.

However, it’s coalescing into a raging windstorm now as the various sectors begin to realize there’s hardly anyone home in the environment ministry, and those remaining have obviously been told to just shutter the windows in the event of a gale, when what’s needed is to get someone in to shore up the foundation and make some repairs to the structure.

You can only ignore environmental issues so long.

This government is focussed solely on urban environmental issues like greenhouse gases and carbon footprints and climate change.

That’s left the rural issues—like proper management of fish and wildlife resources and the habitat, the natural environment they require for life—to just hang out in the wind and get battered to bits by the blizzard and opportunistic predators.

Be warned: It takes awhile for people who are rooted to the land to get riled up about an issue, but when they do, they don’t let go of it easily, until it’s fixed.

And, right now, they’re getting riled up.

They’re incensed about the lack of consultation with them about changes to open seasons for hunting and about the apparent lack of science in some of those decisions.

They’re furious about slashed funding for monitoring the environment and about cuts in staff for enforcing legislation governing degradation of the environment.

They’re incredulous at the total lack of a voice on behalf of fish and wildlife from the environment ministry whenever referrals come from other ministries to pave over, build on or mine the natural environment.

For instance, the response from the environment ministry to the referral from the mines ministry regarding a permit for a very large gravel pit at the confluence of Pearson and Mission Creeks simply pointed out that both are fish-bearing streams and “best management practices” should be followed.

Instead, it should have said simply this would not be an appropriate place in which to mine gravel.

Naively, I have assumed that the environment ministry protects the environment from situations where there is the potential for environmental damage—particularly where it’s asked for comment about applications such as this.

However, even applications to build docks over fish spawning grounds are not simply denied at the environment ministry level, as they should be.

Data is being gathered to show how many hundreds of millions of dollars are contributed to the economy and to government coffers by anglers and hunters, and questions will be asked about why so little of that goes back into protection of the environment, instead of going into general revenue.

Those in government who might not be able to weather the storm had better take shelter elsewhere—or take steps to make some repairs.

Judie Steeves writes about outdoors issues for the Capital News.

jsteeves@kelownacapnews.com

The world is run by those who show up.

 

 

 

 

[chris gadsden]

Click on the link below if you are interested in reading about the just completed 5 year letter of understanding about gravel removal on the Fraser River.

They are presently working on another one for 5 or more years. They have an extension for this years with 3 sites being considered.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans-habitat/habitat/aboutus-apropos/partners-partenaires/fraser_e.asp

[Gaffer]

Chris, it baffles me as to why this subject has gotten very little attention on the forum. I've walked the proposed sites and have seen the damage already done to some of the best fishing locations on the Fraser. Spring Bar would be a great example and so would last years kill of Pink Salmon Fry.

This issue should receive far more attention and could be the start of the end of the Fraser as we know it. Anglers and the general public should be outraged at the way the government, local media and politicians have treated the very people they hire to protect the enviroment.

I think we need to get very loud and organized on this issue.

Merry Christmas

Well RA 40 --as Chris well knows , some of us did get loud and organized in March , we called a public meeting in Chilliwack , informed the Media , Brochures in all Sportfishing outlets in the Valley ,put together a good presentation , ---- had 1 ONE politician ( from the NDP ) show up , 75 YUP SEVENTY FIVE Concerned Citizens ---NO Local Politicians (ie Les Or Penner)----- One day after the BC Prov'l Election Ottawa issued a Study Condemning the Prov'l MOE AND the DFO for allowing destruction of fish habitat with NO Scientific backup to support it and had lied about the Flood Contriol benefits to allow the Gravel Grab --- Vindicating Everything that the Committee said was true . I was at that Meeting---- Where were You ??

[chris gadsden]

Community Control over Gravel Mining: Please consider adding your voice to Brian Lewis' Article in today's Province, "When is an agreement not an agreement?"

Gravel News Story Link: http://www.theprovince.com/news/When+agreement+agreement/2296896/story.html

[chris gadsden]

This story from today's Chilliwack Progress sound very similar to what we have been facing on the Fraser, they donot want to let the public to have any input, unacceptable.



Scrap FVRD gravel plan, critics say
 

Input sought on gravel pits
Text   By Robert Freeman - Chilliwack Progress


Published: December 07, 2009 4:00 PM
Updated: December 07, 2009 4:39 PM

0 Comments A proposed gravel removal plan, drafted behind closed doors, should be scrapped and the public involved in new negotiations, says a critic of the plan approved by the Fraser Valley Regional District board.

Resident Walter Neufeld said there’s no guarantee that public input can now change a memorandum of agreement designed by the B.C. government “in lockstep” with the gravel industry.

“The public was entirely excluded and their best long-term interests were not fairly represented,” he said.

But Popkum electoral area director Bill Dickey insisted that no final plan will be approved without public input.

“Certainly, we don’t think we’re going to have it enshrined in law without getting public input,” he said.

“This (MOU) is not likely to be a perfect resolution of a very difficult problem,” he said. “But what we hope is it would be a much better situation than what we’ve had to deal with in the past.”

He said the FVRD currently has “almost no input” into the location of gravel pits, and that has led to the large number of land-use complaints and lawsuits by residents living near gravel operations.

He said the idea behind the negotiations was always to reach a “workable” agreement on a “very complicated” problem, and then take it to the public.

The MOU, reached after five years of negotiations with FVRD staff and elected officials, B.C. mines ministry and gravel industry representatives, was supported by most FVRD directors at the Nov. 24 board meeting.

Hemlock Valley electoral area director Wendy Bales, who voted against the MOU, said she’d like to see a public advisory committee formed to hear residents’ concerns.

She said residents don’t get a chance to fully air their views at regular public meetings where they are limited to one or two questions.

“There’s no dialogue at those meetings,” Bales said.

Abbotsford Mayor George Peary, who also voted against the MOU, said he believes changes can still be made to the current agreement.

“The agreement is there, I’m happy it is there,” he said. “We might yet arrive at something we can all subscribe to. If that’s the case, good.”

But he disagreed with the MOU’s “three-colour” approach to mapping potential gravel removal areas, and the industry’s desire for one fee across the region.

Homeowners living in “green” areas where gravel mining would be allowed fear their house values will fall or they simply won’t be able to sell.

Gravel mining would not be allowed in “red” areas, but could take place under certain conditions in “yellow” areas.

One fee charged by municipalities for gravel removal would be put in place across the region.

Peary said the B.C. government is pushing the plan because it wants to protect the province’s gravel resources.

“The fear is that local government will essentially throw it away or allow other development on top of a valuable (gravel) resource,” he said.

rfreeman@theprogress.com

[chris gadsden]

Chilliwack Progress
Gravel plan critics ‘terrorizing’ communities, minister says




Published: December 14, 2009 6:00 PM

1 Comment
 B.C. Mines Minister Randy Hawes says critics of a proposed gravel removal plan for the Fraser Valley are “terrorizing” communities in the region by fanning the flames of unfounded fears.

And those critics may “unwittingly” be doing communities more harm than good, he says, as the plan would save taxpayers “hundreds of thousands of dollars” in legal fees, and maintain an affordable source of aggregate, most of which is bought by local governments with taxpayers’ money.

Hawes also says the charge that a memorandum of understanding recently approved by Fraser Valley Regional District directors was done “in lockstep” with the gravel industry is “frankly, a bunch of drivel.”

Public hearings were not held during the five years the MOU was being hammered out, he says, because there would always be someone opposed to some part of the plan and “we would not have completed the project.”

Having elected FVRD directors on the Aggregate Pilot Project committee was a “balanced way” of including residents’ concerns in the MOU, he insisted.

A similar process is now taking place in the Okanagan - with public consultation - because of the ground-breaking work done in the FVRD, he said.

The minister compared the APP process to the way developers work with city planners on proposed subdivisions, ironing out details before presenting the “product” at a public hearing.

“I’m looking at this (APP agreement) the same way,” he said.

Public hearings at the regional and municipal level will be held now that the MOU has been approved by the FVRD directors, and officials of the B.C. government and gravel industry.

The MOU uses a three-colour map to identify gravel resources in the region, with green designating reserves available for mining; red for areas not open to mining; and yellow where mining can take place under certain conditions.

Currently, mines can be located anywhere in the province by order of the chief mines inspector by authority of the B.C. Mines Act.

FVRD Director Dick Bogstie said that’s what has made the lives of some area residents “freakin’ miserable” and led to doomed court challenges by the regional district.

“I’ve been fighting gravel operations and quarries since the day I was elected,” Bogstie said, but he held his nose and voted for the MOU because it gave the region some control over the location of gravel mines, and thus some stability for homeowners.

“Everybody had to give up something,” he said, to reach the agreement. “It’s one of those things. There’s no winners in this.”

The MOU will also allow local governments to put restrictions on gravel processing, like noise and dust levels, and eliminate “double-trucking” that will reduce carbon emissions.

Some property owners will be “annoyed as hell” to find they are within a green area, Bogstie agreed, but he said he has not been able to confirm whether property values will increase or decrease as a result.

“We have to be cautious that we don’t create expectations that don’t exist,” he said. “We want to be as truthful with the people as we can.”

The MOU also proposes one fee charged by municipalities for gravel removal across the region, which was a key demand of the industry.

But Abbotsford Mayor George Peary said in an earlier interview that he doesn’t agree with that proposal, and he believes public hearings can still bring changes to the final agreement.

While some FVRD directors questioned whether those changes could stand up against provincial legislation, Hawes said the MOU itself protects them from being over-ridden by the senior government.

If any party “violates the conditions” of the MOU, he said, then the agreement fails “and we’re back to square one.”

Hemlock Valley electoral area director Wendy Bales wants the MOU scrapped, and a public advisory committee formed to present residents’ concerns in a whole new process.

Sumas Mountain resident Walter Neufeld said the public needed to be part of the process because FVRD directors on the committee had a conflict of interest in keeping gravel costs down for the government.

But Popkum Director Bill Dickey said ending the “turmoil” of the constant land-use complaints from residents was the main concern of area directors.

“We were not attempting to get some cost-savings for ourselves, but resolution to a huge amount of turmoil for us,” he said.

rfreeman@theprogress.com




Showing 2 of 2 comments
Sort by  Popular now Best Rating Newest first Oldest first    Subscribe by email  Subscribe by RSS

  Bounder999  35 minutes ago  

What absolute drivel this person spouts. I guess if you are a politician you can say anything you want.

 Comment 2, by Chilliwack 5 minutes ago
 I think it is the Liberal government that is doing the "terrorizing” of communities, not the critics as Mr Hawes stated it this article. They just want to shove down peoples throats this and similar pet projects such as fish farms, HST, run of the river projects, and gravel extraction on the Fraser River to name a few. They seem to do everything they can to prevent input from local governments,organized groups and the general public that are concerned about protecting our environment and way of life. The only bright spot will be that this will be the last term Mr. Hawes and company will be in government as they have become more aggrogant than ever, the people will not forget this time! I look forward to seeing them back on the other side of the House in 3 years time.!

[chris gadsden]

5 of us met with Federal Cabinet Minister Chuck Strahl for one hour this morning. As usual our technical people made a great presentation to the Minister. We never know how effective these meeting are in getting us to our goal of having gravel extraction done properly so fish and fish habitat is protected but we as volunteers we keep doing the best we can on this on going file.

We hope to have some of our Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee appear at the sockeye inquiry in the months ahead.