Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: troutbreath on December 20, 2007, 10:26:29 AM

Title: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: troutbreath on December 20, 2007, 10:26:29 AM
Here is what I would call a total idiot promoting gravel removal from the Fraser, getting his say in the paper for all to read. Nowhere does this clown realize that there fish living among the gravel that's being removed. Maybe "don't build on a flood plain" would be the smarter thing. There are safer places to get gravel alright. ???



COLUMN: Take ‘gravelgate’ with a grain of sand
By Tom Fletcher - Surrey North Delta Leader - December 19, 2007    |    |      |    | 

 The latest controversy over gravel removal from the lower Fraser River illustrates the toxic climate of suspicion that still attends environmental issues in B.C.

For years the bottom of the lower Fraser has been inexorably rising, as millions of tonnes of gravel, sand and debris roar down through the Fraser Canyon each spring and drop on the flood plain as the water slows. Decades of diking and redirecting in one of the world’s great food production, transport and human habitation zones have changed the dynamic of B.C.’s main artery, confining the river and its vast detritus.

The science, like the sand, is settled. There is an unnatural but all too real buildup. We need the planetary equivalent of coronary bypass surgery, before the 2007 tally of floods (Prince Rupert, Smithers, and Prince George among them) starts to sound like fond memories.

The fruitless bickering and stalling between Ottawa and Victoria on this problem is all too familiar to Fraser Valley folks. Federal fisheries looks after salmon and B.C. environment looks after the sturgeon and other fresh-water fish. A long-sought agreement to take half a million cubic metres a year out is expiring with only a small fraction removed.

In the last couple of years B.C. ministers Barry Penner and Pat Bell have quietly pointed east when asked about this problem, observing the premier’s third or fourth commandment: Thou shalt not pick fights in public with Ottawa. Now word comes that last spring’s near-miss flooding has prompted a serious effort at Herrling Island near Chilliiwack to take out more than 50,000 truckloads. That’s most of the annual target amount that hasn’t been getting done, out a single site. And it has to be done between January and March when water and fish activity are lowest.

A fisheries biologist now at BCIT, Marvin Rosenau, tossed a Christmas cracker into this plan before going on holidays. In a long email that found its way to me and numerous river watchers, he calls the Herrling Island plan “the biological equivalent … of running a D9 Caterpillar tractor down the centre of the spawning beds of the Adams River.”

Further, he alleges that first he and then a couple of weeks ago another provincial biologist were transferred off the Environment Ministry’s gravel committee for standing up for fish. He and the other scientist say that in the latest case, deputy minister Joan Hesketh acted personally at the behest of Penner and his Chilliwack neighbour John Les, who as Minister of Public Safety is responsible for flood control.

Alas, Rosenau blows his credibility when he claims that this is all a gravel grab for the construction business. Not only is this hotly denied by both Penner and Les, it doesn’t pass the common sense test. There are safer places to get gravel.

What’s really happening is that Ottawa and Victoria were scared by the record freshet last spring. So scared that B.C. spent a fast $33 million fixing dikes, with Ottawa as usual tottering in weeks late to cover half of the cost. B.C. has put up another $100 million for the coming years, and it may not be enough.

As for the delicate habitat of woody debris that will be disturbed by a series of gravel extractions this size, I’ll just ask you this.

Have you stood on the banks of the lower Fraser River during a strong spring runoff? Once the ice is through, the “woody debris” can include clumps of giant trees ripped out of the ground. The power is exceeded only by glaciers.

Pardon our carbon emissions, but it’s time to start the gravel trucks.

tfletcher@blackpress.ca

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on December 20, 2007, 10:49:23 AM
Another gravel article on B1 of Vancouver Sun today.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: troutbreath on December 20, 2007, 11:36:48 AM
Thanks Chris here it is. Another fired or displaced employee for doing their job, pretty sick. :-\


 Thursday » December 20 » 2007
 
Politics led to dismissal: fisheries critic
Ex-biologist says Victoria intent on promoting gravel mining in river
 
Larry Pynn
Vancouver Sun


Thursday, December 20, 2007


The Ministry of Environment has removed one of its biologists from a technical committee because his concerns over fish habitat were standing in the way of massive gravel extraction plans for the lower Fraser River, charges a former provincial fish biologist turned BCIT instructor.

Marvin Rosenau, who says he was similarly removed from a gravel committee by the province in 2003, asserts that biologist Ross Neuman was removed in November from the technical committee because he was "obstructive" to the province's gravel removal plans at Herrling Island, upstream of Rosedale.

Rosenau said "the political agenda of giving access to local gravel interests in the upper Fraser Valley was not being achieved because this civil servant was doing his job" and that "his information strongly showed that this site should not be mined based on the available information . . ."

Neuman, head of the ministry's ecosystems section for the Lower Mainland, e-mailed Rosenau on Nov. 26 stating: "I have not heard anything re a decision on the lower Herrling gravel removal proposal and I do not expect to.

"Effective last week, I am no longer a member of the Fraser Gravel Technical Committee. I was removed from the committee by the deputy minister. As I understand it, I will not be replaced and environmental stewardship will no longer sit on the technical committee."

The Sun's call to deputy minister Joan Hesketh was referred to Sarah Harrison, communications director for the environment ministry.

Harrison explained Neuman's removal in an e-mail Wednesday: "It was a routine staffing decision based upon the best use of staff resources. The ministry has another committee member who will continue to represent our interests."

The six-member technical committee is comprised of provincial and federal bureaucrats who consider the merits of gravel extraction proposals for the lower Fraser River in terms of the environment, public safety, navigation, and hydraulics, and make recommendations to a management committee.

Neuman's departure leaves the environment ministry with Ron Henry, a river engineering specialist, as the ministry's only representative on the committee.

Rosenau argues that the province's contention that the gravel removal is needed for flood control has no scientific basis and puts salmon and other fish that rely on the gravel channels off Herrling Island at risk.

"In its own uniquely Canadian way, senior government managers responsible for the protection of the lower Fraser River and its habitats are able to turn a country of First World wealth into a country that has the environmental ethics and behaviour of a Third World totalitarian regime," he said.

Glen Thompson, director of flood protection for the B.C. government, refused to comment on Neuman's removal but did say that the provincial and federal governments reached a five-year gravel extraction agreement in 2004 for the lower Fraser based strictly on flood protection.

He said the agreement set targets of 500,000 cubic metres each in 2004 and 2005, and 420,000 cubic metres each in subsequent years. No more than 60 per cent of the annual targets have been reached.

He said the province, in consultation with Ottawa, has proposed four gravel extraction proposals for 2008 ranging between 25,000 cubic metres and about 400,000 cubic metres -- the Herrling Island proposal.

Once a proposal is developed, the province seeks expressions of interest from companies to remove the gravel. Three aboriginal bands are among those to benefit so far from contracts.

The technical committee was formed after an environmental fiasco involving the removal of gravel in 2006 in the Fraser River at Big Bar near Rosedale. A report by the BCIT fish and wildlife program estimated two million young salmon were destroyed by the construction of an access road during the gravel mining operation.

Rosenau, recipient of the Vancouver Aquarium's Murray A. Newman Award for Excellence in Aquatic Conservation in 1999, contends he knows something about political meddling by the B.C. government in fish science.

He said he, too, was removed from his position on a gravel committee in October 2003 and seconded to the University of B.C. because of his concerns about loss of fish habitat.

He said a senior provincial environment ministry official told him there was nothing wrong with his science, but that eastern Fraser Valley MLAs didn't like him.
lpynn@png.canwest.com

© The Vancouver Sun 2007
 

 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: RA40 on December 21, 2007, 11:58:53 AM
My letter sent to the the editor

Mr. Tom Fletcher, although I usually enjoy reading your columns, I think your way off on this issue. I have been on the Fraser for the past 30 years fishing and boating and make a living guiding for salmon and sturgeon. Senior biologists on the Fraser have been working on this issue for many years and each and every one of them have come to the same conclusions. Removing large amounts of gravel from the Fraser will do little to lower the water table and do enormous damage to the salmon spawning and fish rearing habitat not to mention the damage to sturgeon habitat.
 
The Fraser River's prime rearing habitat is a very small area of gravel between Hope and Sumas Mountain. This 60 km stretch of river is probably the most important piece of water on the entire 1200 km of river. There are only a hand full of productive fishing, spawning and rearing locations on this piece of water and most of these locations are scheduled for massive gravel removal. How do I know this, well they hired me as a boat pilot to show them the proposed gravel removal sites.
 
In your column you forgot to mention the real reason that local politicians are all in favor of gravel removal. It really has nothing to do with flood control, it has to do with money. If they remove gravel, local communities like Chilliwack, Agassiz, Hope and so on will receive a royalty for the gravel, if they build the dykes, these same communities will have to pay millions of dollars in labor as they did this past spring. This is not new,it's been going on for years. Pay millions or receive millions?hmm. Don't need to be a brain surgeon to answer that one.
 
The so called build up of gravel in the lower Fraser is more a myth than fact. Over the past 10 years UBC has been conducting  studies try to determine the true volume of gravel deposited in the lower Fraser each year. Each and every time they come up with lower numbers and credit most of the so called build up to in-river shifting. In -river shifting occurs every freshet when hundreds of thousands of liters of water come rushing through the Fraser Canyon. This high volume of water tears apart at islands and gravel bars along the Fraser often depositing the gravel several miles down stream. That new bar that is formed at mile 26 is not new gravel but gravel that was removed from mile 23. For every new bar on the Fraser in the summer, I can show you exactly where it came from, upstream.
 
Instead of bashing dedicated people like Dr Marvin Rosenau, maybe you should write about the  real story. Our government hires dedicated, educated and highly respected biologists and when they don't like what they have to say. They remove them from their jobs and try to discredit them.
 
Have a great holiday.
 
Please feel free to call or e-mail us with any questions or concerns
 
Vic Carrao
STS Guiding Service
www.guidebc.com
sts@guidebc.com
Toll free- 1-866-771-3474
 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on December 21, 2007, 08:40:11 PM
Very good letter Vic and thanks so much for taking the time to write it.

 It is good that you and others do this as both the press and our elected officials from all levels of government have to be held accountable for what they say and write.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: RA40 on December 22, 2007, 10:10:07 AM
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
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: mattcass on December 22, 2007, 03:44:07 PM
I'm sorry to say that aside from reading the pink salmon fry story last year, I haven't been following this issue.

However, it does not surprise me at all to see the BC and local governments silencing the environmental science and flashing the words PUBLIC SAFETY to achieve their goals. Economic interests always come first people, always.

The BC government was warning a lot of people this spring that flooding would happen due to the record snow-pack. If my memory serves me right, flooding was being pushed as a serious risk to fish health because of what the flood water would pick-up (debris, contaminants) and carry back into the Fraser, if the river breached the dykes. Now as far as I know, that flooding never happened despite snow-pack levels 300% above average. I think there was some dyke work done, and was that touted as being the reason the flooding never happened? I can't remember.

What I see here is the BC government capitalizing on the fears people have regarding flooding in the Fraser Valley. What Vic has mentioned in his letter to Tom Fletcher, about gravel shifting, if true, is something the public is completely unaware of (I consider my attention paid to this issue to be about average and I haven't heard a thing about this shifting). All that the public has heard is that gravel builds up in the Fraser, raises water levels, and unless the dykes are raised, the gravel will inevitably cause flooding. Vic would you happen to have a link or PDF for the UBC studies you mention?

Thankfully Marvin Rosenau has raised the issue of the government dismissing those promoting proper environmental stewardship. I have met and talked with Marvin before and while I do not know him well, his character and genuine sincerity when it comes to issues of conservation make him far more trustworthy than any government official who must satisfy the economic interests of the region adjacent to the Fraser.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: mattcass on December 22, 2007, 04:11:23 PM
On a separate note, I am as surprised as RA40 that issues such as this (and others like sea lice) get so little attention on this forum.

These environmental issues have moved far beyond activism into the realm of genuine and meaningful scientific research. None of the people involved in these issues can be labeled as 'tree-huggers' in any sense of the word. They are simply passionate about their cause and cry foul when the government turns a blind eye to issues with significant consequences for generations to come. I feel many of these issues are avoided or ignored by people because of outdated views and misconceptions about those bringing these issues to the center of public attention.

As a group that collectively uses and enjoys a vast resource, anglers have a responsibility to understand and speak up on these incredibly important issues. Whether these issues happen in the heart of the Fraser Valley or in an isolated fjord a thousand kilometers up the coast, the policy and decisions surrounding them will end up affecting your own personal lives at one point or another. Unless you voice your dissatisfaction with actions taken (or not taken) by government or corporations, the resources you enjoy will become permanently depleted.

If that happens, and we lose a resource like Fraser River salmon, the powers at be won't be responsible. Instead, the blame will lie with the indifference of an uninterested, uninformed, and uncaring public.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on December 22, 2007, 04:50:49 PM


 Vic would you happen to have a link or PDF for the UBC studies you mention?



Google Fraser River Gravel Reach Studies.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: RA40 on December 23, 2007, 12:25:18 PM
Mattcass, thanks for your reply.

4 or 5 years back, prior to Marvin being removed as the Fraser River Senior Biologist, I attended a few workshops which included presentations from UBC Hydrologists and Marvin. The UBC team had been working on a model for flood protection. To do this they needed to calculate the amount of gravel deposited each year in the area know as the gravel reach ( Hope to Sumas). This wasn't the first time this had been done, if my memory serves me, this was the 3rd or 4th time in the past 20 years.

One of Marvins main bone of contention was that each and every time they looked at gravel deposits, the number was lowered. How do you decide on the correct amount of gravel to be removed without doing major damage to the river when everytime you look at it, the number gets lower. I think it went from 400,000 CM to less than 150,000.

I don't think Marvins position was ever to take no gravel, it was simply, don't take more than is deposited each year. Until you know the true number, be conservative. Proponents of gravel removal want to use outdated numbers as this allows for more gravel removal. The other big issue was how and where to take it from. The more environmental friendly approach would be to skim gravel bars at low water. This means that no spawning grounds or rearing habitat would be impacted.

Although everyone agrees that this would make the most sense, gravel removal would be costly and probably not pay for itself.
I think that issue alone begs to question, is this about money or flood control? If it really is about flood control, than it still would be cheaper to skim bars and remove small amounts of gravel than build the Dyke's. It is very clear that the gravel removal proponents want massive amounts of gravel taken from single locations as this would make the job more cost effective. The down side is obvious.

I can tell you first hand that the majority of local politicians and mayors support gravel removal in mass amounts. I've been to more than a few meetings and mentioning the words " Dr Marvin Rosenau" will quickly get you noticed.

If your not familar with the Fraser in the Sea-bird Island area, there is a bar called Spring Bar. This bar was well known for its excellent holding water for Chinook, Sockeye, Cutthroat trout and is prime rearing water for juvinile Chinook. The water just above  & below this bar is fairly fast so fish use it for resting and rearing. The last two years the gravel trucks have been working hard removing gravel and this bar is now completely gone, its now a deep hole with silt.

Last spring just before the freshet hit, the bc government was panicing. I got a call from a local company asking me to take them out onto the Fraser to identify potential sites that have easy access for gravel removal. These sites are already marked for gravel removal and some have already been worked on. One we looked at was just below Gill Road, the other was in Agassiz at the foot of McDonald road. It was already too late and they had stated more than once that this was a move by the provincial government to appear to have done something to protect the valley from flooding and it was little too late to actually effect the outcome. This scared the hell out of me and showed clearly just how they do business.

Those people who are trying desperatly to save the Fraser from massive gravel removal and destruction are up against some of BC most powerful people. The future looks grim and by the looks of the attention this is getting and the direction local news media are going, makes me even more sceptical. I will do my part and more, everyone who cares about this river needs to speak up, write letters and support people like Dr Marvin Rosenau and anyone else who is taking up this battle.




Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Terry Bodman on December 23, 2007, 04:06:18 PM
Excellent letter, Vic. I for one will be sticking with Marvin Rosenau on this one. Nothing gets my blood pressure to go up more rapidly than having some politicians remove committee members because they are not coming up with the "right answers." That kind of action is a real slap in the face to us mere citizens. The convincing factor for me was the statement, "there is nothing wrong with your science....... ."

I for one will be chatting with the Minister of the Environment about this matter but expect that I will only get left off his Christmas card list for my efforts.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: roeman on December 23, 2007, 04:23:01 PM
I think it is great that there are people out there giving up their time going to meetings and writing letters on the matter. 
RA40, as far as your points about Spring Bar and a couple of other sites that have already been worked on, do we really think that writing letters and going to meetings is going to help at this point.  Please do not misunderstand what I am saying, I do appreciate peoples effort, but maybe it is time to pick up the pace as far as what we all can do.

Unfortuneately I do not have any brilliant ideas on what to do next..but letters and meetings, we might just as well clean out our boats and put them on craigs list. 

1. what if we were to get as many people as possible and take boats and anchor them on the gravel bars, or what ever else would get in there way. I would be up for this..

2 start a petition and have it for signing at all the tackle stores ( I would be willing to get this going)

Every year we hear about groups camping out to protect old growth forests, spotted owls, ect
The commercial guys go out and do a protest fish to prove a point.
Like I said I do not have any brilliant ideas on what to do, and I do appreciated all those who have wrote letters.
But all it will take is some error in judgement and the gravel will come tumbling down the river and fill in some large parts of the rivers that sturgeon call home, and that will be the end of that as well...

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: RA40 on December 23, 2007, 09:52:56 PM
Roeman, I think your dead on. The only thing politicians understand is bad press. I thought about a protest and that might be the only way to stop this.  Water levels on the Fraser are not suitable for gravel removal so that is buying time. Maybe Chris can update us on what the FVSS or SFAC position is on this issue. Also did the Chilliwack Watershed Committee have a position? Chris, do you think that we are at the last stage where a protest is the last resort?
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Old Black Dog on December 24, 2007, 06:55:10 AM
What the Politicians understand is bad press over decisions they or their staff make.
The Ministers do not like to be embarrassed.
It is clear that taking gravel out of the river does nothing for the flood's increasing the dike height does and it is up to all of you to press this point at any opportunity.
Gravel removal is all about $ and nothing else.
Stick it to them at every opportunity.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on December 24, 2007, 08:14:33 PM
Roeman, I think your dead on. The only thing politicians understand is bad press. I thought about a protest and that might be the only way to stop this.  Water levels on the Fraser are not suitable for gravel removal so that is buying time. Maybe Chris can update us on what the FVSS or SFAC position is on this issue. Also did the Chilliwack Watershed Committee have a position? Chris, do you think that we are at the last stage where a protest is the last resort?
Some FVSS members and directors have been actively involved with this for nearly 2 years starting with the Big Bar incident that killed millions of pink alveins in their redds because of the causeway that was built to access the gravel excavation site. Of course this was unbelievable that this could be allowed to happen and this is why so many are so concerned with what could happen again.

 As well Frank Kwak the FVSS president has attended several meetings over this 2 year time period including going to Ottawa where he helped make a presentation to The FOC Standing Committee, on this Big Bar incident.

I am not sure what the next step will be but the media has been kept abreast of the going ons as best as possible the last while. I believe a meeting may also be arranged with The Environment Minister shortly.

For now letters to the Federal Fisheries Minister, Environment Minister, MLA's, MP's and the media is something everyone concerned about this should try to do in the next few days. Of course if you do write always ask for a reply.

A protest of course is a option as well but they have to be handled carefully. The problem in this is most of the general public has been lead to believe gravel removal is the answer to preventing a flood. You may have noted in the media during the 2007 flood threat nearly everytime prevention measures were mentioned gravel removal was one of the priority that needed to be addressed. It maybe hard to get the general public on side and that is what one has to try to do so Political people will pay attention.

I do know a lot has been done over the last while on this file by many people that care with a passion about our fish stocks and the environment these salmonids call home. I guess enough to write a book on what goes on, behind the scenes.

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on December 26, 2007, 10:12:00 AM
Another article on this subject in the Vancouver Sun today.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: troutbreath on December 26, 2007, 08:55:19 PM
Native leader questions bands on gravel extraction program
Grand chief says 'when the fish are gone, our aboriginal rights are gone'
 
Larry Pynn
Vancouver Sun


Wednesday, December 26, 2007


Sto:lo Grand Chief Ken Malloway has urged his member bands to reconsider their ongoing participation in a provincial gravel extraction program on the lower Fraser River for fear of causing further damage to fish stocks.

"They need to really take a good look if they're doing any damage to habitat and to see if selling our territory by the truckload is the best way to deal with our resources," Malloway said in an interview. "When the fish are gone, our aboriginal rights are gone."

Malloway was responding to a Vancouver Sun story revealing that the B.C. Ministry of Environment had removed biologist Ross Neuman from a federal-provincial technical committee reviewing the merits of a provincial plan to extract 420,000 cubic metres of river gravel at Herrling Island near Rosedale.

Critics charge that Neuman was removed because his concern for fish stocks stood in the way of the extraction plan, which could begin early in 2008.

An estimated 1.5 to 2.25 million young salmon died in February and March 2006 during a Cheam Indian band gravel removal project at Big Bar near Rosedale.

The province insists gravel extraction is needed for flood control, although Malloway believes there are limited flood benefits.

Those bands that take up the government invitation for gravel extraction stand to make a tidy profit from selling the aggregate to fuel the region's construction boom.

"I don't see any reason why they should be so determined to haul gravel out of the river," Malloway said.

"People say they're doing it for flood control, but there's an awful lot of money to be made in gravel. It sure seems to me that that's the main reason to remove gravel -- to sell it and make some money at it."

Provincial statistics provided at The Sun's request show four of 24 Sto:lo bands -- Cheam, Seabird Island, Popkum and Skway -- have participated in the gravel extraction since 2005. Band officials could not be reached to comment.

Several private companies are helping the natives with the extraction, including Valley Gravel, Lafarge, Jakes Contracting, and Lehigh Northwest Materials.

The Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor-General identified the bands and companies involved in the gravel extractions for The Sun, but did not provide financial details.

The B.C. and federal governments agreed in 2004 to a five-year gravel extraction program with the target of removing up to 2.2 million cubic metres of gravel from the lower Fraser.

A total of 449,820 cubic metres have been extracted over the past three years.

Marvin Rosenau, a former provincial fish biologist turned BCIT fisheries instructor, has charged that Neuman was removed because his concerns for fish stocks stood in the way of gravel removal. Rosenau said he, too, was removed from a gravel committee for similar reasons in 2003. He joined BCIT in 2005.

The ministry said Neuman's removal was a "routine staffing decision based upon the best use of staff resources."

Carrie Mishima, communications officer for the federal Fisheries Department, was unable to find a department official to comment on the issue over three days. Provincial Environment Minister Barry Penner, MLA for Chilliwack-Kent, told his provincial staff he wouldn't be available to comment over the holidays.

lpynn@png.canwest.com

© The Vancouver Sun 2007
 

 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on December 27, 2007, 09:31:11 PM
Thanks trouthbreath for posting these stories for the forum members to read.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on December 28, 2007, 05:18:27 PM
I've been writing about this issue on this forum for a few years now.  I've resorted to sarcasm lately because nothing has been done.  Clearly, it's an issue of money.  Trying to do it in the name of flood control is a joke.  Ironically, by saying it's about "flood control", the politicians are ignorantly admitting that they've consistently allowed development to occur without any thought.     
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: allwaysfishin on December 28, 2007, 06:01:42 PM
Provincial statistics provided at The Sun's request show four of 24 Sto:lo bands -- Cheam, Seabird Island, Popkum and Skway -- have participated in the gravel extraction since 2005. Band officials could not be reached to comment


figures as much,,, these are the same bands that rape the river every year with illegal gillnets... they have no respect for the resource or for environmental stewardship..... they are just in it for the $$$$$$ , capitalist "whitey" has taught them well.

gravel removal on the fraser and fish farms in the Broughton........ and government just sits by and lets it all happen..... none of this surprises me. Kill the fish..... then we can dam the fraser and make BILLIONS upon BILLIONS selling power to the U.S. ....... betcha we see it in our kid's lifetimes.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on December 28, 2007, 06:38:23 PM
It's a shame that we don't all start talking to each other as people and not one nation vs. another.  Regardless of the past, we are all in the same boat now. 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: troutbreath on December 29, 2007, 12:07:01 PM
RA40 and myself have sent a letter to the editor about this article and still no reply. I questioned the validity of the content of the story and the "journalism" or lack of in printing crap like that. Still waiting to see some responce :-\
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Old Black Dog on December 30, 2007, 09:00:30 AM
Fraser River will be dredged in new year
Flood Risk: Action after close call in spring
 
Glenda Luymes
The Province


Sunday, December 30, 2007


Gravel removal will begin on the Fraser River early in the new year in a bid to reduce the risk of spring flooding, provincial public safety minister John Les vowed Friday.

After flooding was narrowly avoided in the Fraser Valley this spring, the Ministry of Public Safety was given oversight of the controversial Fraser River gravel-removal program.

"Our sole motivation for removing gravel is flood protection," said Les. "At the end of the day, we don't want to be playing Russian roulette with the safety of citizens in the Fraser Valley and Lower Mainland."

Les could not comment on how much gravel would be removed in 2008, saying only that he hoped it would be close to the target amount established four years ago.

"It would be nice if we were able to achieve that, for once," he said.

In 2001, the provincial and federal governments signed an agreement lifting a moratorium on gravel removal, and in 2004, a five-year deal allowed for the removal of 500,000 cubic metres of gravel each year for two years and 420,000 cubic metres after that.

In the four years since then, only 320,000 cubic metres in total have come out. Minimal amounts were removed this year.

Les said the contracts for gravel removal will still undergo a rigorous approval process, with input from the environment ministry, but conceded there was a "renewed sense of urgency" after the close call last spring.

The Fraser River gravel-removal program has long been contentious.

While as much as 300,000 cubic metres of gravel washes into the river near Chilliwack each year, raising the river bottom, environmentalists are concerned about the risk dredging poses to fish stocks.

A study published last spring by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans concluded large-scale dredging of gravel from the Fraser would be ineffective in reducing the flood risk, while a report by the Fraser Basin Council found it could have some impact.

Critics claim government and industry support gravel removal because there is profit to be made.

But Les insists that's not true.

"The private sector has lots of other sources for gravel. It's very debatable whether it's even financially viable to take the gravel out. The government may have to subsidize some aspects of it," he said.

Chilliwack Mayor Clint Hames said he's happy to hear the government commit to gravel removal, but would like to see a comprehensive, long-term strategy for flood protection established.

"I'm really hopeful that this is the beginning of a different sort of legacy for the Fraser River, where public safety is at the forefront," he said.

gluymes@png.canwest.com

© The Vancouver Province 2007
 

 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: nosey on January 02, 2008, 08:06:53 PM
    If the bottom of the Fraser was rising as the proponents of the gravel removal would like us to believe then the water levels would be higher when we had the same amount of water flow as historical levels, yet last year when the water flow nearly equaled that of 1948 the water levels were nowhere near the 1948 marks. I've lived within a kilometer of the river for 58 years and I see no evidence of the river levels being higher with the same amount of flow, and I'm fairly sure the Canadian hydrometric surveys will back me up on that.
    The mining of the Fraser River bars is just another cash grab by the same short sighted politicians that keep adding to the amount of fish farms on the coast, somewhere down the line the management of our fisheries and stewardship of our west coast wild salmon has to be taken out of the hands of the politicians and turned over to some sort of non partisan agency.
    Politicians cannot be trusted to look after environmental issues because at the end of their term if they do not run a balanced budget they will not be re-elected so they will sacrifice anything for short term planning. If they happen to destroy salmon rearing habitat or sturgeon spawning beds to make a few bucks for the provincial coffers so be it that kind of destruction won't be fully documented till they're drawing a fat pension and gloating over how they tricked the voting public and bragged about their surplus budgets.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: troutbreath on January 02, 2008, 08:26:26 PM
Record snowpack last year and still no flooding? I can see dyking to protect the areas they don't want flooded but like the bottom of the river changes every year. I don't think they study this enough to start saying removing the gravel will stop flooding, or it would have flooded last year. What do they say about Prince George flooding because of the ice build up? Sweet dick all because they don't know.

Habitat distruction for fish through ignorance comes cheap.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on January 02, 2008, 08:39:51 PM
I'm assuming they'll move all this prime river bed gravel to other stream restoration projects that need it also ;) 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on January 08, 2008, 06:45:48 PM
An editorial in today's Chilliwack Times with an article in the Chilliwack Progressas well for those interested.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: troutbreath on January 08, 2008, 07:04:29 PM
Thanks for the heads up Chris.

One minute they say it's flood protection the next it's to keep the river bottom level/on keal/steady. I bet there looking for Bouncing Betties. ;)



Dredging may not solve issue
 
The Times


Tuesday, January 08, 2008


The provincial government has stepped up with a plan to help reduce the risk of flooding.

Sounds great, on the surface, after the close call last spring and early summer.

But is it really an effective plan?

Provincial Public Safety Minister John Les announced that gravel removal will begin on the Fraser River early in the new year in a bid to reduce the risk of spring flooding.

"Our sole motivation for removing gravel is flood protection," said Les. "At the end of the day, we don't want to be playing Russian roulette with the safety of citizens in the Fraser Valley and Lower Mainland."

That sounds great and we hope he's right, but is this just a waste of time, or worse, a ploy for government and industry to make a profit under the guise of safety?

We're questioning the move because of a federal government report issued last spring that raises serious doubts about the plan. The report, obtained by CanWest News Service, said a massive dredging initiative on the lower Fraser River would likely do nothing to reduce the risk of catastrophic flooding.

"It shows that [gravel excavation] isn't the silver bullet for flood mitigation," Greg Savard, director of special projects at the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, said last June.

The initiative would reduce water levels by only five to 15 centimetres, insignificant in preventing floods that would only occur if the river level swelled by several metres, said Barry Chilibeck, an engineer at Northwest Hydraulic, which conducted the study.

"It does not appear that large-scale gravel removals from the gravel reach of the Fraser River are effective in lowering the flood profile," concluded author Dale Muir in the April report.

"Localized reductions in water surface elevations are possible, but significant, wide-scale reductions at flood flows are unlikely."

The report, commissioned in March, recommends further studies to ensure that large-scale gravel extraction wouldn't result in riverbank erosion.

We hope the province will take another look at this plan and ensure it doesn't think dredging will solve all the problems. More money, tens of millions in fact, are needed locally to raise our dikes and protect our communities. Let's put our focus on that too.

© Chilliwack Times 2008
 

 

Ministry defends gravel plan
By Robert Freeman - Chilliwack Progress - January 08, 2008


The proposal to remove up to 420,000 cubic metres of gravel from the Fraser River near Herrling Island is not meant to create more flood protection in the area, says a B.C. government official.

The point of the gravel removal “is not to lower the level of the river, it’s to maintain (the level) we have now,” Glen Thompson, B.C.’s director of flood protection, said in a recent interview with The Progress.
Each year more gravel is deposited in the river reach between Hope and Mission. Complicating the process of deciding where to remove it is the fact that the gravel is constantly on the move along the river bottom.

However, Thompson said the Herrling Island proposal would offer some local benefits by reducing the flow of the river now “sweeping toward” the dikes that protect Agassiz. A second proposed removal site at Spring Bar would reduce the river flow toward undiked Seabird Island. Nine potential removal sites have been identified.

A decision on whether to proceed with the Herrling Island proposal is not expected until later this month.

But it has already come under fire by biologists and others concerned about possible damage to fish habitat.

Frank Kwak, president of the Fraser Valley Salmon Society, said he agrees gravel can be removed from the river at certain sites at certain times, but he questions why the massive Herrling Island proposal is being considered in 2008, a pink salmon year.

He also said the public is being sold the idea that taking gravel out of the river will lower the water level and increase flood protection, but he argues dredging the sand and silt at the bottom would offer more protection without risking flood habitat.

“From a fisheries perspective ... you should be taking the sand and muck as opposed to the gravel,” he said.

Kwak also pointed out that a federal fisheries review of the fish-kill at an earlier gravel removal site called for the creation of a “multi-agency” review committee, which he believes should include recreational fishermen and First Nations.

“We can certainly send people (to the committee) who may not be technical experts but we can listen,” he said. “Instead, we’re kept off this committee altogether.”

Marvin Rosenau, a fish biologist and instructor at BCIT, has charged the B.C. government with “muzzling” committee members who are insisting on science-based evidence the Herrling Island proposal will not harm fish habitat.

He has likened the proposal to “running a D9 Caterpillar tractor down the center of the spawning beds of the Adams River” while providing “trivial” flood protection benefits.

He said the “comic book-level” of an environmental report to the committee was “a stunning testament to the refusal of the agencies to require a rigorous assessment of the impacts associated with these types of projects.”

BC Environment Minister Barry Penner said he stands by the review process, and that gravel must be removed from the river to protect area residents.

He said the gravel build-up over the years “is putting us at greater flood risk.”

“Gravel removal must take place, but it must take place in an environmentally safe way,” he said.

Earlier, Penner said he would support a call by the Pacific Fisheries Conservation Council to create an interim task force to protect the environmental, cultural and recreational values of the river reach between Hope and Mission.

The council recommended the “multi-agency” task force until a comprehensive river management plan can be designed. But local and regional governments have been lobbying for just such a plan for years without success.

rfreeman@theprogress.com
 

 

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on January 09, 2008, 10:31:05 PM
It's so idiotic it's almost funny.  Really, are there no heavy weight environmental groups willing to challenge the Govt. over this? 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on January 11, 2008, 06:50:25 PM
It's so idiotic it's almost funny.  Really, are there no heavy weight environmental groups willing to challenge the Govt. over this? 
A meeting of some environmental groups is being held tomorrow.

From a Provincial Government press release send out at 3 pm today work is starting next week on Spring Bar that is by the Seabird Island Indian Reserve. The project is starting with the construction of a bridge, access road and culverts.

The Government press release also says they have provided $564,000 to help with this project to remove 4000,000 cubic metres of gravel.

The rational given is to help reduce the Fraser River Flood risk. ::)
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on January 11, 2008, 07:52:38 PM
Sounds like they better dredge out these governmental buildings.  It looks like they're full of A$$ H07e$ that are shoveling the public a bunch of S#!7

The lower Columbia river is dredged, but only to keep open shipping lanes.  Even doing this is a huge environmental travesty and the USACE admits it, but at least they don't try to fill us up with a bunch of hooey.   
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on January 12, 2008, 05:19:45 PM
Another article in The Vancouver Sun today, by Scott Simpson "Gravel mining on the Fraser River called threat to fish"
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Geff_t on January 12, 2008, 05:31:33 PM
Was talking to a person that lives on the north Allouette and he was telling me that they want the government to dredge parts of the north Allouette for flood control all because of a freak rain storm last year that was a one in a 100 year storm. Even I got flooded from it and I am down the road from the south Allouette which no one wants dredged. I sure hope the government does not go through with it.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on January 13, 2008, 04:11:41 PM
Another article in today's Vancouver Province on this subject.

Also note, the building of bridges and a causeway to access the Spring Bar site is starting tomorrow. A tug and barge was sighted Friday heading to the site. :'(

Environmental groups will be monitoring the area starting Tuesday as best they can to attempt to prevent what happened in 2006, on Big Bar. It was at this site where millions of alviens were lost because of a dewatering problem due to the of the construction of a causeway that blocked off a side channel of the Fraser River.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: gman on January 13, 2008, 08:22:02 PM
Also note, the building of bridges and a causeway to access the Spring Bar site is starting tomorrow. A tug and barge was sighted Friday heading to the site. :'(

Does anyone know the details of the spring bar gravel removal? Will the gravel be removed from the side channel that has water in the spring and dries out in the summer? Spring bar is a very popular fishing  location, mostly for bottom bouncing over the past few years. I wonder if that will change now.

The gravel removal that took place on the lower end of spring bar a few yars ago took away some fine boat access and long walk in access fishing spots.  You could bottom bounce some parts, and bar fish a very long stretch (a km or so). Not much left of that area now.  :(
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on January 13, 2008, 10:02:23 PM
The group that met on Saturday have most of the details of what is going on with the gravel removal plan and some are going to the site starting this week to monitor the goings on and will be during the duration.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: firstlight on January 13, 2008, 10:32:30 PM
I cant believe they are getting away with this. >:(
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on January 14, 2008, 07:20:36 PM
Anyone that would like to help monitor the work that is going on with this project please phone Frank for details at 604-792-8083. Free boat trips on the Fraser included. ;D ;D

Right now they are desperate for some help.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: troutbreath on January 14, 2008, 10:11:32 PM
I'll be in Alberta till Monday morning but if there is something to do when I get back. I will be happy to monitor and take the camera along.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on January 15, 2008, 08:40:14 AM
I'll be in Alberta till Monday morning but if there is something to do when I get back. I will be happy to monitor and take the camera along.
I am sure there will be, give Frank a call as he is coordinating the dates, boat, volunteers etc.

Thanks for lending a hand.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Rodney on January 15, 2008, 09:10:45 AM
People should consider helping and supporting these few dedicated individuals like Chris who continue to put pressure on the expansion of what many of us consider as criminal activities.

Here are some photos from February/March 2006 to remind all what happened when these operations go unchecked. The story... (http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=9945.0)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/album21/060226_8.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/album21/060228_5.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/album21/060311_3.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/album21/060310_5.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/album21/060309_10.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/album21/060309_11.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/album21/060308_1.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/album21/060309_8.jpg)
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on January 15, 2008, 12:23:02 PM
I'm sure all machinery will be de-greased and use vegetable oil for hydraulic fluid and all re-fueling will be done at least 300' from water.  Maybe I'm dreaming.  This is standard practice for in or around water work in many places that actually care about the environment.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: BwiBwi on January 15, 2008, 01:05:40 PM
Grease float on surface.  In this case where water current's present it won't be a big issue.  But like 2 years ago.  Draining side channel would be a BIG problem.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on January 15, 2008, 05:49:19 PM
I beg to differ.  Petroleum products in the water are bad, regardless if they're on the surface or not or if there's a current or not. 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on January 15, 2008, 06:12:23 PM
More articles today in the Chilliwack Progress and Chilliwack Times, check their web pages for the articles.
Title: Re: River bed parking?
Post by: jetboatjim on January 15, 2008, 07:04:07 PM
I guess removing gravel from the fraser and lower vedder (they will be digging up the lower vedder this year) is good for the fish and enviornment ?

I guess those big dump trucks and caterpillers dont leak fluid do they?

Do you think the gravel removal is for the good of the sourrounding ares , or  just so the city of chilliwack can get some cold hard cash.
Title: Re: River bed parking?
Post by: All Tangled Up on January 15, 2008, 09:05:17 PM
It's a double edged sword. Without a doubt it is a cash grab but also a necessary evil to avoid 'possible' flooding. Losing some fish for the greater good of humanity is what it's all about. I'm sure if you all lived in the flood plain you'd be singing a different tune. I'm sure there are people much more educated than most making sure the environment is impacted as little as possible. If you all feel that strongly about it why don't you protest the actions of the excavators and stand in from of them so they can't work. Writing complaints on the FWR web site gets absolutely nothing accomplished.
Title: Re: River bed parking?
Post by: chris gadsden on January 15, 2008, 09:30:50 PM
This discussion should most likely be on the correct thread so maybe Rodney will move this and the other related posts to the gravel thread.

Anyway in my humble opinion you could never take enough gravel from the Fraser River to prevent a major flood if one is going to happen. Those that travel the Fraser I think would agree it is just too large an area to try and get enough material out to make a real difference. There would not be enough equipment to accomplish the task anyway and besides it would not be economically feasible to do so. Northwest Hydraulics in the study they did for FOC happens to agree with my first sentence in this paragraph.
Title: Re: River bed parking?
Post by: BwiBwi on January 16, 2008, 01:00:19 AM
Chris has it right.  Depth, width, gradient all play important roll in water flow.  The gradient difference from Chilliwack to Richmond is very small.  If heavy rain occurs that will cause flood at current time it will still cause flood say if you successfully removed enough gravel from Fraser for the entire stretch through hope to Chilliwack.  The discharge rate is still unchanged at Richmond which will still cause flood.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on January 16, 2008, 06:48:33 AM
You are right Chris, you cannot take enough gravel to prevent floods.  In fact, I wonder what kind of liability the Government is assuming by doing this removal.  Say, for example, their actions unintentionally redirect the thalwag, which ends up flooding someone else's property, perhaps some first nation land.  Who's going to knock on the Government's door the next time the river floods, to point out to them that they wasted everyone's time, money and resources for nothing. 

The massive floods that occurred in Washington last month taught many people valuable lessons.  Sure, existing dikes are being rebuilt, but homes are a different story.  In some locations, people are not allowed to rebuild.  In other locations, they can only rebuild if they lift their homes higher.  There have also been cases in history where entire cities were abandoned and relocated to higher ground because of reoccurring catastrophic floods. 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Rodney on January 18, 2008, 02:55:03 PM
This week's gravel extraction photos can now be found at:

http://www.fishingwithrod.com/member/gallery/2008-fraser-gravel-extraction

Chris will add comments to them.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on January 18, 2008, 03:15:20 PM
This week's gravel extraction photos can now be found at:

http://www.fishingwithrod.com/member/gallery/2008-fraser-gravel-extraction

Chris will add comments to them.
Thanks Rodney. Also thanks to the boys that included Frank who made their first trip to monitor the site on Wednesday taking pictures and video footage. A very brief review of what they saw and worked on.

They found a pile driver at work held in place by 2 tugs driving in piles for the bridge span.

Several culverts were in place as you see in the photo and already they are high and dry, serving no purpose. Is a repeat of the 2006 fiasco going to repeat itself?

The crew did a survey of the site and found several pink redds in the area of concern. They also marked out the present water line for future reference as this project progresses.

We will try to keep you updated as the monitoring of this continues over the months ahead.

Thanks once again to the many concerned groups and people that are dedicated to try and protect our fish stocks and the environment for the future.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Eagleye on January 18, 2008, 04:17:17 PM
Just so you know  CBC.ca will soon be offering a place on their website to upload photos and video.

http://www.cbc.ca/bc/news/yourstory/ (http://www.cbc.ca/bc/news/yourstory/)





Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Old Black Dog on January 19, 2008, 08:02:10 PM
 I'm sure if you all lived in the flood plain you'd be singing a different tune.

They moved onto a FLOOD PLAIN?

What did they expect?
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Rodney on January 20, 2008, 02:47:51 PM
Posting photos from this weekend for Chris, his comments to follow.

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/2008-fraser-gravel-extraction/080120_01.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/2008-fraser-gravel-extraction/080120_02.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/2008-fraser-gravel-extraction/080120_03.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/2008-fraser-gravel-extraction/080120_04.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/2008-fraser-gravel-extraction/080120_05.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/2008-fraser-gravel-extraction/080120_06.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/2008-fraser-gravel-extraction/080120_07.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/2008-fraser-gravel-extraction/080120_08.jpg)
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on January 20, 2008, 04:38:28 PM
Frank along with SDA, BCWF members and a documentary film maker visited the site again this past Saturday. They noticed the water level as receded from 2 feet to close to 12 feet, depending on the ground contours. New marker stakes were driven in so as to continue monitor the water elevations

A road / ramp has been built so equipment can be loaded on barges and taken to the other side of the channel.

Two previous culverts have now been removed and replaced by 2 larger ones. The crew noticed they were basically hanging dry and serving no purposes at this time.

5 pilings now driven in with significant white water has been created behind them due to the strong current of the channel.

On going ashore Frank tried to ascertain if the environment monitors were on site there but in trying to find out he was met by a person from the contractor. The person did not coperation that well with Frank and was told to go to the Seabird Band office every time he tried to ask a question. Therefore they could not determine if the monitors were actually there making sure the construction is being done properly.

The contractor also asked Frank and crew to go no further and leave this part of the site immediately, which they did.

The pictures above are a few of the 100 they took.

Once again anyone that wishes to help out please contact Frank as many more trips are to be taken in the weeks ahead.

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on January 20, 2008, 06:01:22 PM
Frank wanted me to add the fellow that came out to talk to him was courteous to him as was Frank. The group that is concerned about this project want to work together with the contractor on this as much as possible.

Frank also said he has been told by others that they had no authority to ask him to leave as they came in by boat and were within the highwater mark of the river.

If they were coming in by land it indeed would be proper to ask permission which we were told by FOC would be granted if we asked at the Seabird band office.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on January 20, 2008, 06:22:39 PM
So now that there's pile driving, we can also add direct impacts of sound pressure to the list of what's killing the fish.  Was anyone set up down stream while they were driving pile?  Don't be surprised to see some floaters.  This sound pressure can travel hundreds of miles in open salt water and would do the same in a river if it was't impeded by corners and shorelines.  Even if a bubble curtain was used, there'd still be mortality.   
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: mattcass on January 20, 2008, 08:45:04 PM
Had a chat with people 'in the know' a few days ago. I'm not too sure how pertinent this information is but yes, fish are in the gravel and there will definitely be dead fish. The BC government has an R.P. Bio on site monitoring the operation. The BC government regulations supersede DFO so this is entirely a BC government matter. The BC government could shut the whole thing down if they wanted to without any problems...
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on January 20, 2008, 09:13:59 PM
Were there any fish exclusion efforts prior to the gravel extraction?  I know it may have been a huge undertaking, but they could have netted off this huge bar in the first place to keep fish from spawning there.  They could have also waited for the alevin to grow up a little then sein or shock the fingerlings to move them out of the impact area.  It just seems to me that there was little to no advanced environmental planning with this project.  They are just pushing it through under the guise of the approaching threat of  spring freshet floods.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Old Black Dog on January 20, 2008, 09:21:41 PM
Had a chat with people 'in the know' a few days ago. I'm not too sure how pertinent this information is but yes, fish are in the gravel and there will definitely be dead fish. The BC government has an R.P. Bio on site monitoring the operation. The BC government regulations supersede DFO so this is entirely a BC government matter. The BC government could shut the whole thing down if they wanted to without any problems...

You are kidding, this is all about $ and the Liberals will rape and pillage with no cares about fish.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on January 21, 2008, 02:09:29 PM
Rumour has it a tug flipped over at the site on the weekend, trying to confirm this, as well someone trying to find out through WCB.
Title: Tug Capsizes At Gravel Excavation Site
Post by: chris gadsden on January 21, 2008, 05:47:27 PM
I just got information from Frank that a tug, the "Gravity Puller: did indeed capsize at the Spring Bar gravel excavation site on the Fraser River. Information is sketchy but it was reported it was seen drifting away upside down with the crew hanging on the side.

I Imagine a bit of an oil spill would have occurred as well

I believe the local press was working on the story late today so we should get more details in the next day or so.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on January 21, 2008, 05:53:25 PM
Rumour has it a tug flipped over at the site on the weekend, trying to confirm this, as well someone trying to find out through WCB.
Just got word one of the tugs pictured in the pictures above did tip over a couple of days ago. I started a new thread on this with more information.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: river walker on January 22, 2008, 02:00:21 AM
yep well , that's karma workin.... digging up redds !! that will learn ya!!
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on January 22, 2008, 05:16:22 PM
 This really hurts me to have to type this and I feel sorry for the FOC staff that most likely got political pressue from some level to issue it.

It is in an article in today's Chilliwack Progress as a further permit now has been given to the gravel excavation project. This permit now allows authorization for works or undertakings causing the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat and for destruction of fish.

Besides the article I have a copy of the 12 page permit issued a few days ago that I was sent yesterday and it just makes me feel sicker than I am with my cold when I read it.

Why in hell are they going to this area to take out gravel if this is going to happen?

I guess if there is a positive to this it will bring it to the attention of many, throughout Canada what is happening here on the West Coast with our precious fish stocks. Precious to us that really care it appears.

The Globe and Mail and other medias are on this also.

A sad day indeed, here in the WACK. :'( :'( :-[ :-[ ::) ::) ??? ??? :o :o :( :( >:( >:(
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on January 22, 2008, 08:35:38 PM
It's been nice knowing you all.  Looks like I'll be booking my trips in a few years elsewhere due to the lack of returning fish :'(
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Rodney on January 23, 2008, 02:38:01 AM
Don't be so disappointed bentrod, maybe our only option is to come down to fish with you in a few years from now.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/fraser_valley/t...s/13965072.html (http://www.bclocalnews.com/fraser_valley/theprogress/news/13965072.html)

Quote
Gravel permit leaves fish at risk: biologist
By Robert Freeman - Chilliwack Progress - January 22, 2008

A permit approved by federal fisheries for the largest in-river gravel removal operation in B.C. history opens the door to a fish-kill similar to one that destroyed millions of pink salmon hatchlings at a smaller site in 2006, says John Werring, a biologist with the David Suzuki Foundation.

He said the permit basically authorizes unlimited harmful alteration of fish habitat, and the construction of a causeway to the gravel removal site at Spring Bar in the Fraser River, if a bridge can’t be built. It was a causeway blocking water to nesting sites near Big Bar that killed pink salmon hatchlings in 2006.

“It’s the first time I’ve ever seen one of these,” Werring said about the Spring Bar permit. “I really don’t know what is going on here.”

Authorization permits normally place limits on how much harm can be done to fish habitat.

Werring also said the planned bridge to the Spring Bar site was also approved without proper engineering.

“We can’t for the life of us see how DFO approved such a crossing,” he said. “We have grave concerns” not just for fish habitat but for the truck drivers.

Federal fisheries area director Mel Kotyk did not return phone calls from the Progress yesterday.

A “river watch” launched by environmental groups is keeping an eye on the Spring Bar site, but they admit there is little they can do now to stop the removal short of a court injunction. But no one seems willing at this stage to risk a failed injunction, which would result in liability for the cost of holding up the multi-million dollar project.

Frank Kwak, president of the Fraser Valley Salmon Society, said the Spring Bar operation is located in the main stem of the river where the water is moving “significantly faster” than the site at Big Bar.

It was safety concerns for truck drivers at Big Bar that led to the decision in 2006 to scrap plans for a bridge and build a causeway, which led to the “dewatering” of nesting sites.

“It’s another Big Bar situation all over again,” Kwak said.

Kwak also said he was told by a senior fisheries official that pilings for a smaller bridge at a removal site near Harrison Bar was not proceeding because “they were not sure of the impact of driving the piles” on nearby fish nesting sites.

“They were convinced at Harrison Bar it would disturb a lot of (nesting sites),” he said. “If there’s shock impact there ... there’s an equivalent impact of shocks up at Spring Bar, but at Spring Bar they’ve decided to let it go anyway.”

Kwak and Werring both continue to doubt the flood protection benefits of the Spring Bar removal, despite statements by provincial and Seabird Island Band officials.

“The environmental community is not out to stop gravel removal in the Fraser River, if it has flood protection values,” Werring said.

According to the BC River Forecast Centre, the outlook is “favourable” that last year’s flood conditions in the Fraser River won’t be repeated this year. The snowpack in the Upper Fraser is 97 per cent of normal for January 1, “well below” last year’s level of 128 per cent. Low elevation snow is generally near or slightly above normal.

rfreeman@theprogress.com
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Terry Bodman on January 23, 2008, 07:22:09 AM
This whole issue is scary indeed. When I sift through all the information I have received on this controversial subject, two statements from a researcher stand out.

1 " ... there are no demonstrated significant benefits to flood protection or erosion contrary to the agencies' satements."

2. " This constitutes one the single largest destruction of this type of fish habiat in mondern history in British Columbia."

In my opinion, these statements say it all.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on January 23, 2008, 05:29:52 PM
You all have been more than hospitable whenever I'm up there fishing.  I'd be glad to return the favor when your fishery goes bad.   
Title: Re: Tug Capsizes At Gravel Excavation Site
Post by: chris gadsden on January 23, 2008, 08:00:35 PM
WCB investigating.
Title: Re: Tug Capsizes At Gravel Excavation Site
Post by: chris gadsden on January 25, 2008, 06:13:36 PM
Apparently Work Safe BC has shut the site down earlier in the week. Not sure when they will start it up again. Article in today's Chilliwack Progress re this incident
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on January 25, 2008, 06:24:36 PM
Another article in today's Chillwack Progress as DFO explains the reason for issuing the latest permit.

Check it out on their web page.

I understand Global TV is working on a story as well as another by the Globe and Mail.

A letter has been also sent this week to the PM as well as many other Federal and Provincial Politicans outlining their concern for this project.

The weather may be cold out but this gravel excavation project is getting hotter each day. I have never seen so many groups working together on this. Not sure what the outcome will be but stay tunned.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Rodney on January 26, 2008, 03:30:22 AM
http://www.bclocalnews.com/fraser_valley/theprogress/news/14373257.html

Quote
DFO defends gravel removal at Spring Bar
By Robert Freeman - Chilliwack Progress - January 25, 2008

There is “absolutely” no contradiction in federal fisheries’ mandate to protect fish and a permit that allows removal of 400,000 cubic metres of gravel from Spring Bar in the Fraser River, says Mel Kotyk, DFO’s area director.

Earlier this week, opponents of the Spring Bar removal said they were shocked by the lack of limits that would normally be placed in a permit authorizing habitat damage.

However, Kotyk said the permit is the same as any where harmful alteration of habitat is expected, but the usual compensation requirement was not included.

Normally, in a housing subdivision for example, compensation would be required in a permit authorizing harmful habitat alteration, but “how do you compensate for gravel on the bottom of the Fraser River?” he said. “It’s not a simple task.”

Environmental groups and local First Nations are being asked for their ideas on compensation, but no decision has been made yet, he said.

The opponents are also concerned the Spring Bar removal is going to be a repeat of the removal at Big Bar in 2006 where a causeway built to the site led to the “dewatering” death of millions of pink salmon eggs.

But Kotyk said he is confident the design of the Spring Bar site by a registered professional, and the full-time monitoring of the removal operation will prevent the mistakes made in 2006.

“There’s a whole series of lessons learned at Big Bar that are being applied here,” he says. “I do not think what happened at Big Bar is going to be repeated.”

Where the causeway at Big Bar had only two culverts to allow water to flow through to nesting sites, the two causeways at Spring Bar will have a total 14 culverts, he said. The causeways are being built on each side of a 280-foot bridge to the site. The bridge is supported by pilings that will allow the river to flow freely underneath.

There are also “very few” salmon nesting spots at the removal site itself, though more are located upstream and downstream, Kotyk said.

“That’s why this site was chosen, quite frankly,” he said.

A key change in the way gravel removal is now being done has allowed more time for planning, Kotyk said.

Instead of waiting to see if a contractor steps forward to bid on a removal project, the B.C. government now acts as the proponent, removing the uncertainty, he said.

The provincial government is also providing “stable funding” for removal projects using the $10-million flood mitigation fund announced last year.

The government is paying the $564,000 cost of the bridge at Spring Bar, for example, and it is dropping the royalties the contractor would normally have to pay.

“This really does allow us to plan and be more strategic in how we do gravel removal,” Kotyk said.

He hopes the changes will open the door to more discussion by local and senior governments, First Nations and environmental groups about long-term removal plans.

“Let’s put our heads together and see what we can do that is more long-term, instead of doing this bar by bar,” he said.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on January 26, 2008, 12:32:01 PM
It's pretty simple to me.  They need to quit spending the money not on trying to change mother nature, but start buying the people out that get flooded year after year.  They also need to exercise some political will and not allow future development to take place on flood plains.  Take a hint from New Orleans and do what's right, not just politically acceptable. 
Title: Re: Tug Capsizes At Gravel Excavation Site
Post by: woodscamper on January 26, 2008, 03:46:18 PM
Apparently Work Safe BC has shut the site down earlier in the week. Not sure when they will start it up again. Article in today's Chilliwack Progress re this incident
Yes, they were there as they should be when anything happens. However, no, they didn't shut down the work site. Business as usual.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Rodney on January 27, 2008, 01:06:54 AM
Letter from DFO to a number of ENGO's regarding their involvement on Spring Bar.

http://www.fishingwithrod.com/fishy_news/file/080127.pdf  (2 pages, pdf file, just over 600kb)
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: troutbreath on January 27, 2008, 11:46:17 AM
Was on the news hour twice (Global) yesterday. At least some media is paying attention to the issue.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on January 27, 2008, 12:22:07 PM
Was on the news hour twice (Global) yesterday. At least some media is paying attention to the issue.
As I posted elsewhere, if you missed the coverage and wish to view the clip it is on Global TV's web page.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Rodney on February 01, 2008, 02:28:02 PM
Photos posted for Chris. His comments to follow.

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/2008-fraser-gravel-extraction/080201_1.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/2008-fraser-gravel-extraction/080201_2.jpg)
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on February 01, 2008, 03:01:23 PM
Pictures above was taken yesterday as they continue to build the bridge to the gravel site at Spring Bar. I wonder if the cost will go over close to the half million dollars the Province has given to build the access road and bridge crossing.

A major story is supposed to run in the Globe and Mail tomorrow as Frank and others went to UBC the other day to meet Dr Michael  Church a fluvial geomorphologist from the UBC research team and Mark Hume a Globe and Mail reporter.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on February 02, 2008, 01:57:06 PM
The article is in today's Globe and Mail that you can read on their web page.

Thanks Rodney for posting it below.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Rodney on February 02, 2008, 02:07:31 PM
Silencing the troubled waters (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080202.BCGRAVEL02/TPStory/TPNational/BritishColumbia/)

While the local chief says removing the gravel poses no threat to salmon, opponents label the plan 'grotesque' and fear its impact
 
MARK HUME
February 2, 2008


VANCOUVER -- Clem Seymour, chief of the Seabird Island band, can remember the day he first heard the sound of the riverbed shifting.

He was fishing for salmon with his family on the great sweep of the Fraser River near his small community, about 100 kilometres east of Vancouver, when his mother turned off the boat's engine and told him the soft, clicking noise, muffled by the water, was made by rocks rolling along the bottom.

"She stopped the boat and I could hear it, just moving under the water," said Mr. Seymour, who is heading a controversial project to mine a large gravel bar just upstream from the Seabird Island reserve, between Hope and Chilliwack, in the Fraser Valley.

The idea of heavy equipment working on the exposed bed of the most productive salmon river in the world has alarmed many. And the project has set traditional native knowledge against modern science, as the Seabird Island band argues they know more about the Fraser than anyone, while some experts on ecology and river hydrodynamics say they are destroying valuable salmon habitat while doing nothing to alleviate the flood threat.

"We are river people. ... We wouldn't be doing this if it hurt the salmon," said Mr. Seymour, whose band has provincial and federal approval to remove 400,000 cubic metres of aggregate from Spring Bar, near Seabird Island.

"Where that gravel bar is, it used to be part of the main channel. But now it's filled in. ... The river seems to move faster now and we've lost about 10 to 12 acres [of reserve land] through erosion.

"We have to do something about it," he said.

The aggregate Mr. Seymour heard rolling underneath his boat was part of a natural process that, over the centuries, has built up massive gravel bars that have been blamed for increasing the flood threat in the lower Fraser River, from Hope to Vancouver.

Mr. Seymour's band, which last spring was nearly flooded when the river rose to within centimetres of topping its banks, plans to take two big chunks off Spring Bar over the next several weeks, with the idea of lowering the water level.

To get access to the bar, the band is building a temporary bridge, with funding of $564,000 from the provincial government's flood mitigation budget.

When the project was announced last month, Minister of Public Safety John Les said it was needed to reduce the Fraser River flood risk.

"Vast deposits like the Spring Bar have raised the river's bed and narrowed its channel, increasing pressure on the dikes that protect homes, businesses and land throughout the valley," Mr. Les said.

But the plan has come under attack from the David Suzuki Foundation, the B.C. Wildlife Federation and dozens of other groups. While it gives the Seabird Island band several millions of dollars worth of high-quality aggregate to sell, they say, it does so at high cost to salmon.

"It is absolutely appalling," said Marvin Rosenau, a former fisheries biologist with the provincial Ministry of Environment who now works as an instructor on fish ecology and environmental management at the British Columbia Institute of Technology.

"If this goes ahead as planned, it may end up dewatering a side channel [by changing the river's flow], and it looks to me like an enormous amount of salmon-rearing habitat will be lost," Dr. Rosenau said.

He said there has been considerable gravel mining on Fraser River gravel bars over the decades, but the Spring Bar project is disturbing because of its size.

"This is the biggest chunk of gravel ever removed at one place from a stream in Western Canada," he said. "This is just grotesque."

THE BIG BAR DISASTER

Gravel mining on the Fraser has been pursued since 1948 because the bars, which emerge during low water in the winter, present vast deposits of gravel that is highly valued by the construction industry, which uses it to make concrete.

In 1998, the provincial government imposed a five-year moratorium on Fraser gravel mining because of concerns about the impact it was having on salmon habitat. When that moratorium was lifted in 2004, the government released a plan that authorized the removal of between 420,000 and 500,000 cubic meters of aggregate each year.

But that plan came under attack in 2006 when the river level suddenly dropped and a side channel below a project at Big Bar ran dry, resulting in the stranding deaths of about two million young salmon.

Dr. Rosenau said that after the Big Bar disaster he expected the government to be more sensitive about where and how mining was done. But the Spring Bar project, he said, has proceeded without adequate assessment of environmental impact.

Mel Kotyk, Lower Fraser acting area director for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, says the project has been carefully planned.

In a letter released last week, Mr. Kotyk stated: "DFO's role is to ensure that the project is carried out in a way that minimizes the potential harm to fish habitat and fish stocks in the river. I can assure you that the Department has been involved in the planning of this project from the outset, and that measures have been taken to ensure that it does not pose a threat to pink salmon habitat, eggs or alevin."

He said a biologist has determined "that pink salmon spawned in the area upstream and downstream, but that very little spawning occurred at the site itself."

Dr. Rosenau said his own studies show one of the two river channels at Spring Bar is prime pink salmon spawning habitat and the other is ideal for rearing chinook salmon.

"The gravel in there is just perfect for salmon," he said.

And he warned that the river could shift dramatically because of the mining, damaging both channels. He said one side channel will get more water and a faster current, while the other will be turned into a big ditch, "basically creating the Suez Canal of the Fraser River."

Frank Kwak, a member of the Fraser Valley Salmon Society, said his group has identified more than a dozen species of fish at Spring Bar.

"DFO hasn't done the kind of work in there that we have," he said. "Among the things we found is that it is an area that has river-rearing sockeye, which is very rare in B.C. Yet DFO has never identified that there are sockeye there. They have no idea."

Sockeye normally rear in lakes and the presence of them at Spring Bar suggests it is an area with special fishery values.

John Werring, a salmon conservation biologist with the Suzuki Foundation, said he is shocked DFO would approve the destruction of salmon habitat. He said the authorization permit states specifically: "The destruction of fish hereby authorized ... is the loss of pink salmon eggs and alevins, and fry ... at sites C and D on Spring Bar."

Michael Church, a professor emeritus in the department of geography at the University of British Columbia, has spent more than 30 years studying the movement of sediment in the Fraser River, and the related channel changes.

He said it is "misleading" for the government to cite a flood threat because gravel has not been building up at Spring Bar.

"The reach between Laidlaw and Aggasiz, within which Spring Bar lies, has on the whole been degrading - that is, it has been losing gravel for several decades now. It was accumulating gravel in the early through middle part of the 20th century, but since then the major slug of gravel seems to have moved on farther downstream," Prof. Church said.

So the chattering of gravel that Chief Seymour hears on the river bottom is the sound of aggregate flowing out with the current, more than it is flowing in.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Rodney on February 02, 2008, 02:07:44 PM
WHY GRAVEL MATTERS

There is probably nobody in the world who understands the shifting nature of the Fraser River's bed better than Michael Church, a professor emeritus in the department of geography at the University of British Columbia.

For three decades he's studied how gravel moves and he believes much of it entered the Fraser River in the 19th century, when placer miners flooded into the watershed, searching for gold.

Big floods have since shifted that gravel down from the mountains, pushing it in waves farther and farther down the river, where it has settled out in gravel bars.

While the bars closer to the mountains are degrading, or being worn away by erosion, new bars are continuing to build farther and farther downstream.

"It's like a slug, it's like a rabbit being consumed by a snake," he said to describe how the gravel bars are slowly shifting toward the sea.

The government argues that it is important to remove gravel from the Fraser, to lower the river bottom, and thereby reduce the flood threat.

But Prof. Church said gravel removals should be carefully controlled to keep the river's gravel budget in balance.

While it was long thought millions of cubic metres of gravel were washing into the lower river each year, Prof. Church has determined the actual amount is only about 200,000 to 300,000 cubic metres annually. With the B.C. government authorizing the removal of more than 500,000 cubic metres a year, that means more gravel is being removed than is flowing into the river.

Prof. Church said that could have serious environmental effects.

"In most rivers of the world where gravel has been removed it's been removed for commercial purposes ... at rates greater than the annual input rate, and what we universally see is the collapse of the river into a single thread, [a] deep, barren channel. ...you have coarse fish ... not salmon or trout. So you change the quality of the ecosystem dramatically," he said.

And removing gravel in one area won't necessarily improve flood safety, he said, because it can alter the flow of the river, leading to more erosion in some places and greater gravel buildup in others.

Careless gravel mining, he said, can therefore degrade the quality of the environment and increase the flood threat.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Rodney on February 07, 2008, 03:11:56 PM
http://www.fishingwithrod.com/fishy_news/file/080207.doc

Quote
January 23, 2008

Honourable Stephen Harper,
Prime Minister of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0E6

Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

It is with a great deal of sadness that we, the membership of the Sportfishing Defence Alliance must join in the call by the B.C. Wildlife Federation for the replacement of Loyola Hearn as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

As you may recall Prime Minister, at the time of his appointment this organization and many others saw Minister Hearn as a fisherman’s Minister. We looked forward to working with him to the betterment of our national fisheries. Unfortunately history has proven us wrong. Rather than a fisherman’s Minister we have seen the development of a senior bureaucrats’ Minister.

In addition to the very clear reasons the B.C. Wildlife Federation has delineated in calling for the dismissal of Minister Hearn, we have to add his ongoing failure to carry out his mandate to protect the fish stocks in the Fraser River. Our members are currently documenting an ongoing habitat destruction project going on at the Spring Bar on the Fraser River. Minister Hearn has given full approval to this destruction. He has done this without carrying out any of the required studies and without the knowledge, nor it seems concerns for the impacts this project will have on last years Pink salmon spawning. There are also serious concerns over of the impacts on Sturgeon populations, a species identified as a major concern by COSEWIC.

Your government signed an memo of understanding with the Province of B.C. setting out the terms and conditions under which gravel would be removed from the Fraser River. As happened in 2006 with the project at Big Bar, this project in 2008 at Spring Bar, has seen virtually none of the habitat assessment reviews being undertaken. In fact as best we can determine, this Minister has ignored virtually all of the recommendations his Department staff made in their review of the 2006 fiasco.

We believe the Wildlife Federation said it all in their comment to you on January 22, “    We fervently believe that the position of Minister of Federal Fisheries and Oceans be held by a public servant who not only shares our vision of the future of fisheries in Canada but embraces and encourages Canadians to partake in accessing their common property resource and protecting the habitat in which fish need to exist.”

Sadly the current holder of this position does not meet these standards and must be replaced.

Yours in conservation:

Bill Otway, President
Sportfishing Defence Alliance
P.O. Box 326,
Merritt, B.C.
V1K 1B8
Phone 250 378-4489
Cel – 250 315-3583

Cc – Members of the SDA.
Cc – Media
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: troutbreath on February 07, 2008, 03:35:03 PM
"Sadly the current holder of this position does not meet these standards and must be replaced. "


and don't let the door hit you on the way out. ;D  I always thought Hearn was a bum.

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Harps on February 08, 2008, 09:17:04 AM
On a separate note, another aspect to consider is the compensation package... or the seemingly lack of.  With any project that is deemed to cause harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, if the project cannot be relocated, redesigned or mitigated, there should be appropriate compensation.

Cited from HADD regulations:

The following compensatory options are presented in hierarchical order from most to least
preferred:
• Create similar habitat at or near the development site within the same ecological unit;
• Create similar habitat in a different ecological unit that supports the same stock or species;
• Increase the productive capacity of existing habitat at or near the development site and within the same ecological unit;
• Increase the productive capacity of a different ecological unit that supports the same stock or species; and,
• Increase the productive capacity of existing habitat for a different stock or different species of fish either on or off the site.

I realize that this is an after-the-fact approach and that efforts should remain targeted at limiting the activities, but does anyone know if their has or will be any compensation?
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Rodney on February 08, 2008, 02:12:59 PM
Photos posted for Chris. His comments to come.

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/2008-fraser-gravel-extraction/080207_01.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/2008-fraser-gravel-extraction/080207_02.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/2008-fraser-gravel-extraction/080207_03.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/2008-fraser-gravel-extraction/080207_04.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/2008-fraser-gravel-extraction/080207_05.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/2008-fraser-gravel-extraction/080207_06.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/2008-fraser-gravel-extraction/080207_07.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/2008-fraser-gravel-extraction/080207_08.jpg)
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on February 08, 2008, 04:08:05 PM
I work around road construction in Washington all the time.  I also acquire the necessary environmental permits from the Corps, US Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries, and I can tell you that those construction practices shown in the threads would never fly in the States.  We wouldn't even allow a construction site to look like that near a wetland, let alone such a large water body with such diversity.  This is a complete joke of a project and someone not only should loose their job over this, but should go to jail.   >:(
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Rodney on February 10, 2008, 06:25:25 PM
A MS Powerpoint file has been released this afternoon that summarizes the gravel operation at Spring Bar on February 2008 and its impact on salmonid habitat. The report is put together collectively by the following groups:

BC Wildlife Federation
sportfishing Defence Alliance
fraser River Keepers
David Suzuki Foundation
Fraser Valley Salmon Society

http://www.fishingwithrod.com/fishy_news/file/080210.pps

The file is just over 2mb large. The entire presentation takes about 10 to 20 minutes to through. Please take the time to go through it and pass it onto others who are unaware of the issue. If you do not have Microsoft Powerpoint, please let us know and I'll see what I can do. Perhaps I will change each slide into JPG files.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: speycaster on February 10, 2008, 06:56:49 PM
Does not work with a mac Rod. ;D
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Rodney on February 10, 2008, 08:11:35 PM
I just turned the slides into JPG files for those who cannot access the Powerpoint file.

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-01.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-02.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-03.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-04.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-05.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-06.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-07.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-08.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-09.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-10.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-11.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-12.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-13.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-14.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-15.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-16.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-17.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-18.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-19.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-20.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-21.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-22.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-23.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-24.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-25.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-26.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-27.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-28.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-29.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-30.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-31.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-32.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-33.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-34.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-35.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-36.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-37.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-38.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-39.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-40.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-41.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-42.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-43.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-44.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-45.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-46.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-47.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-48.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-49.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-50.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-51.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-52.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-53.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-54.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-55.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-56.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2008/080210-57.jpg
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: gman on February 10, 2008, 09:31:45 PM
Thanks for posting that.
It is very intersting and sad reading.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Rodney on February 26, 2008, 09:30:04 PM
'Gravel grab' or saving grace (http://www.canada.com/chilliwacktimes/news/story.html?id=0e13134f-6490-40bb-907b-dfb76290c0e1&k=49463)
The science behind flood protection value along Fraser being questioned

Paul J. Henderson, The Times
Published: Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Large scale gravel removal in the Fraser River is now underway near Seabird Island, but opposition from a growing number of groups suggests it's nothing but a "gravel grab."

The science behind the flood protection value of the gravel removal at Spring Bar is also in question.

"The single-site 400,000 cubic metres removal is, in my estimation, much too large," said Michael Church, a sedimentologist and river hydraulics scientist at the University of British Columbia.

"The head of Spring Bar is a notably poor place for such an extraction . . . excavation of a relatively deep hole in the bed is a poor choice for the removal, and the effect on water levels will be small. The latter point has been known for some years from mathematical modelling of various proposed removals."

But Minister of Public Safety John Les stands behind the current gravel removal project on Spring Bar.

"We need to look at the long term," Les told the Times yesterday. "If someone were to say 'removing 400,000 cubic metres won't make much of a difference,' they would be correct. But the cumulative effect over time will be significant.

"One year isn't going to get the job done. We need to be able to do this year after year after year."

In January, the provincial government, through Les's ministry, announced $564,000 to fund a temporary bridge across the river to access the gravel on Spring Bar with an aim to reduce Fraser River flood risk and protect public safety and property.

"Major deposits, including entire islands of gravel that have formed over time, are increasing the flood risk for the millions of people who live and work in the Fraser Valley," Les said in a press release.

The Fraser Valley Salmon Society (FVSS)--backed by the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the David Suzuki Foundation, among other groups--have suggested that not only will the gravel removal damage high-quality salmon rearing habitat, it won't do anything to help to protect communities like Chilliwack anyway.

"I'm convinced by the science I have seen," said Frank Kwak, president of the FVSS. "Removing gravel out of the Fraser River is not going to do anything significant from protecting the city from flooding."

Kwak points to a number of scientific engineering reports including a gravel extraction modelling report done for Fisheries and Oceans Canada by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants that concluded: "It does not appear that large scale gravel removals from the gravel reach of the Fraser River are effective in lowering the flood profile."

Les's ministry has suggested that between 15,000 and 63,000 dump truck loads of gravel wash down the Fraser River each year, coming to rest between Hope and Mission.

But a study prepared in 2006 for the B.C. Ministry of Lands and Agriculture entitled Fraser River Potential Gravel Removals 2007-2011 reported that the area in question is actually a net area of gravel loss, not accumulation as the government has reported.

The study said there was more than four million cubic metres eroding from this stretch of river between 1952 and 1999, and more since then.

"Comparison to the 2006 georeferenced air photographs and the 1999 channel mapping indicates that the bar on the east side of Spring Bar has actually eroded by about 90 metres over the last seven years," the study concluded.

Kwak's main concern is that the area in question is a 10-hectare footprint equivalent to a four-metre-wide salmon rearing stream 25 kilometres long.

Kwak suggested this really is about the valuable gravel being used for the busy construction industry.

Work at Spring Bar has begun and will continue with DFO approval until March 15. For this work the contract provides the contractor with all rights to the gravel removed.

To protect against any environmental damage, the government announced has said an environmental monitor is there, but given the expense and size of the operation, Kwak says the monitor will have no real power.

"Do you really think that man has the capacity to actually say, 'whoa, you are not moving another rock of this gravel bar,'" he said.

Les responded that the oversight at the gravel removal site will be legitimate.

"Does that person have the ability to shut the site down?" Les asked, and then answered: "Yes they do. I've been clear from the beginning I want this to be meaningful oversight."
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on February 27, 2008, 07:57:09 PM
Time to start a campaign to oust John Les. 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Old Black Dog on February 28, 2008, 07:53:00 AM
Are they done yet?
What colour is the river above and below the gravel extraction?

Are the Early Run Chinook coming through where the extraction is taking place?
What effect is there on this run getting past this?
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: glog on February 28, 2008, 12:08:33 PM
Here’s a totally different point of view!!!

As someone that lives downstream along the Fraser, who has watched it rise for many, many years, I once again see a document with wild exaggerations, narrow vision and total bias to one side of an opinion.  The report totally ignores the wider scale effects and the river morphology but simply concentrates on the local area of the gravel extraction in order to create sensationalism.

There are a couple of obvious things that are completely ignored in the report as it looks only at the spring bar area.

here's some simple questions.

1.  If gravel at Spring Bar has been depleting instead of accumulating over the years then why can't paddle boats make it up through the area when they used to back in the early 1900’s. So much for the degradation crap.

2.   The report harps on about the loss of pink spawning in one area, but totally forgets to mention that additional spawning areas will be created as gravel from further upstream moves and fills in the hole during the freshets. All one has to look at is the gravel removal done on the Vedder and look where the fish actually spawn.  How many of you fellow fisherman catch all those lovely coho in those gravle holes in the fall!!!  These holes hold spawning fish and slowly fill in over the years as gravel rom upstream is moved downstream. With very little impact on the fishery.

3.   Interesting enough the report fails to mention that for every ton of gravel removed up stream is one less ton that gets deposited further downstream for example around my place thus raising the water level.  So removing gravel anywhere upstream has a major effect on downstream flooding. A point deliberately ignored by the report. 
4.   The entire Fraser river from  Hope on down has shallowed by a huge amount, all due to the deposition of gravel from upstream. That is A PROVEN FACT. Just ask the boaters.

Its time to bring balance to these environmental issues, instead of these total biased and misleading reports that try to sway public opinion. 

These special groups make a living by stopping all developments at any cost and do’nt have any care as to where the rest of us earn the money to feed our families as long as it doesn’t involve digging, building, processing or any other human activity.

Here’s a final comment for everyone to think about.  What contributes the most green house gases to the atmosphere?  The answer will surprise everyone.

 If you want to see hypocrites just go look at where the major managers of these huge environmental movements live and what vehicles they drive. Sorry about the soapbox, but I’ve seen so many people’s lives ruined in the past 20 years by these self serving special interest groups that only get a portion of the facts correct.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on February 28, 2008, 12:18:48 PM
Would not be an issue if people would not live or build in/around natural river migration/flood plains. 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: glog on February 28, 2008, 03:50:24 PM
good solution.

 Lets move the entire lower mainland up into the hills.  just in case anyone hasn't noticed the entire area is/was part of the fraser deltaic system.

A good measure is how fast the boundary upstream of mission is moving down stream.  It's a very interesting boundary as that's where a lot of the sediment load is dumped as the water slows down.  Every year it migrates a little further downstream.

Which is booth good and bad.  Good because its creating more gravel fish habitat, bad because its shallowing the river.

Its strange how there's this outrage about fish habitat destruction on a small part of the Fraser, yet not a peep out of the fish habitat destruction caused by nature itself.  A visit to the Chehalis river sure brings that home,  look at the miles of habitat destroyed overnight that is rebuilding in a different path than before. All those stranded coho eggs that will die when the hatch as there is no water anymore.

Instead of concentrating on the small stuff concentrate on banning all net fishing, then watch thenumber of fish increase!!

cheers
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on February 28, 2008, 04:11:31 PM
Moving towns...Stranger things have happened.  True destruction of natural habitat is incising channels, and not letting nature take its course.  Incised channels lead to head cutting and massive erosion.  Which, intern leads to large rip rap banks or bulkheads.  Gravel distribution happens all the time.  As long as water moves, so does the substrate.  These deltas caused by gravel redistribution create important estruaries for out migrating fish.  It's not all about spawning habitat.  Also, most of our fertile agriculture lands were created by floods in flood plains. 

The only benefit for deepening a channel is for shipping lanes.  Straightening and deepening river channels increases the velocity of the water.  Unless the BC government is planning on dredging their way all the way out to salt water, they're setting themselves up for a major event downstream at the next nearest chokepoint. 

Sorry man, but you're fighting a loosing argument here. 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: buck on February 28, 2008, 07:36:24 PM
GLOG

      Your assumption that little damage is being done by the removal of gravel from such systems as the Fraser and Chilliwack rivers as it pertains to fish habitat is not correct.
       Loss of valuable spawning gravel has forced chum, pinks and chinook to spawn in areas not suitable for optimal survivals. Shifting river channels due to gravel mining will
       continue to degrade our river systems for a net loss. If one looks in depth at what has been going on, on the Vedder river over the last 10 years you may change your mind.
       Yes those large pits hold lots of fish but thats about all. Chum tend to spawn on the fringes of these area due to the freshly cleaned gravel. During the fist winter freshet
       they are all washed away as these holes and the river bed shifts. If you were to look at historical spawning areas in the upper water shed they have little or no gravel. Fish
       are being forced into areas such as the lower river to spawn in areas of high risk. Flood events take there toll on salmon juveniles and eggs especially in areas that are not protect
       buy log jams and established river channels.
     



Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on February 28, 2008, 07:42:56 PM
Good post, very informative as well as coming from someone that really knows what is going on here on the Chilliwack Vedder system. It certainly is a shame this is allowed to go on every 2 years.

Thanks for the post.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: troutbreath on February 28, 2008, 10:24:56 PM
My brothers place in PoCo is going underwater. I think lots of areas are going to need higher dykes and probably pumps behind them to keep the water out with the ocean levels rising.

Glog from what I understand as the sediments build up it causes the land to sink/compact with the weight.The sediments get carried right out to the ocean. Which may cause some concern to those living in Richmond. 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: glog on March 01, 2008, 10:24:48 AM
Not really true due to the slow moving current, gravels are dropped as soon as the water slow down.  The effect is so obvious from Mission to Hope.  Anyone familiar with the fraser for 20 years can see this.  The gravel comming down is shallowing the river bed at least 14 times faster than compaction.  Thta makes it not only bad for us humans but for the fish also.

AS for the vedder and gravel these are typical enviro comments. If you folow the logic of statements then the biggest cause to the loss of fish habitat is not gravel pits, its mother nature her self. Cutting into clay banks for example.  Mother nature does more re arranging of the habitat than any other effects. Yet strangely enough the fish still spawn and survive. The effects of these smaller pits on the fish habitat are as usual over exaggerated and blown out of portion in order to support a weak point.

One final thought why do you think the fish are spawning more in the lower river than the upper could it possibly be due to the river getting shallower and the fish not being able to make it up into the middle and upper areas, and thus staying longer in the lower reaches.  That shallowing has nothing to do with the gravel pits.

As the climate changes these condtions will continue to worsen and I have news for you there's nothing we humans can do the prevent these climate changes, as they have been happening many times for over the past 500 million years. We should be concentrating the money on mitigating the effects of the climate change,as even if we stopped all emissions and went back to caveman days, the earth will get warmer and the climate will change. There's is abundant proof of this in the ice and rock records of our planet.

cheers
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on March 01, 2008, 07:29:45 PM
I've got a great idea.  How about we dredge each and every river.  We could then line them all with the concrete from the gravel.  Poof! we could then conquer mother nature. 

I doubt that fish are having a tough time getting up to the middle and upper reaches.  They will spawn where the substrate, water quality, depth and competition is suitable. 

As far as your other comments about mother nature being more destructive than all other human activities goes...Clearly we're reading different books and you probably agree with my first comment, so I won't even bother arguing.  I just hope I'm right, or we're all doomed. 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: glog on March 02, 2008, 10:18:44 AM
Ah endpoints.

Instead of giving mother nature a hand and restoring the balance. Lets all do mass destrucion, another great idea like moving the entire population of the lower mainland.

All you have to do is use your eyes, instead of rhetoric to see what's happening and what's funny the solution is easy.  To bad the die hards are too stubborn to see it.

As the gravel continues to build up in this large area, mother nature will take care of it and we will have the consequences for a period of time then eventually it will be restored over time

If you want mass destruction look at Mount St Helens and what it did to those rivers. The Habitat completely wiped out yet,it is coming back.  AL be it very very slowly.

 So if the solution is done is small pieces the effects will be negligible and all will benefit. so we dont need a mt st helens type solution.

Instead of concentrating on these projects that are aimed at improvements go after the real culprits the NETS.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: buck on March 02, 2008, 11:01:45 AM
Glog   
Its nice to know that our resource is being managed by gravel companies and politicians. You must have bought into all the scare tactics that if you don't remove gravel from the  Fraser river then every one will be under water. Yes the Fraser might flood one day, but I doubt that removing gravel will change the outcome if it does. What it will do is have a negative impact on our resource for years to come.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: clownfish on March 02, 2008, 12:11:01 PM
I've reviewed the powerpoint presentation and it confirms what I intrinsically understood about this. Anyone recall an old saying about "water always finds its own level"? Given that the volume of gravel being extracted is in reality barely even "a drop in a bucket" it is obvious that that will be the effect on the level of water during the freshet. The volume of gravel that they remove will be filled by the same amount of water, however this isn't standing water, it is FLOWING, therefore that will have practically no effect on the overall level of water flowing thru that area once the levels exceed the former volume filled by the gravel. The volume of water from upstream will  have no problem filling in these tiny holes and still be able to spread out to fill the maximum area/volume that is required to provide it with the lowest level it can reach. "Reduction of flood danger" in a pig's eye! To effectively reduce flooding danger on the Fraser River you would have to remove at least a couple of feet of gravel from almost the entire breadth of the river, for the full length of the gravelled area of the river, IE. from Hope to just above Mission, AND then dredge sand/mud from the rest of the river downstream and out into the delta.

This by no means is to say that the other effects of the gravel removal would be as trivial. When all of that water starts flowing thru during freshet is when the truth will "surface", unfortunately it won't be possible to correct it then and the full extent of the damage will only be revealled after the fact. And those responsible will be quietly sitting and smiling at their bank balances, knowing that the worst we can do is vote their party out of government and they will still get their "Golden Parachute" pensions. There must be a lot of money changing hands at the higher levels of government and business, and plenty of threats passing down from there to the levels of the bureaucrats and lower echelons, for this to be allowed to happen.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on March 02, 2008, 12:18:53 PM
Ok, I must be a little slow on the uptake after 20 years of school and 16 years in the profession, I am still not understanding things as clearly as you.  Somehow I'm really having a hard time connecting the dots between mt. st helens and the fraser.  Tell me how I can take these blinders off so I can believe that if we would have taken enough gravel out of the toutle river, it would have never flooded during the volcanic eruption.    

The fraser may be depositing sediment in places different from historic depositories, however, it is not 100% due to mother nature.  Logging, development, channel migration, changes in flow and many other factors are at play.  Nature is just trying to get back to balance and cannot happen if we continue to monkey with it.  As far as catastrophic events go...They have always happened and always will no matter how hard we try to prevent them.   All we can do is try to stay out of the way, (locate your infrastructure, homes and other facilities out of the way).  

P.S. Like I've said in a few other threads, this gravel and sediment is not just necessary in the river.  These sediments and nutrients are critical to sea life and also recharges coastal erosion points.  
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: clownfish on March 02, 2008, 12:59:22 PM
Bentrod, there is no point of comparison between the "gravel grab" and potential flooding from the Fraser River and what happened to the rivers affected by the eruption of Mt. St. Helens.
Quote
Ok, I must be a little slow on the uptake after 20 years of school and 16 years in the profession, I am still not understanding things as clearly as you.  Somehow I'm really having a hard time connecting the dots between mt. st helens and the fraser.  Tell me how I can take these blinders off so I can believe that if we would have taken enough gravel out of the toutle river, it would have never flooded during the volcanic eruption
Only glog knows why he would try to make that comparison, doesn't make sense to me either. That was one of those totally cataclysmic occurrences that only serves to demonstrate that most natural disasters usually make what we can do over the short term (and without resorting to nuclear weapons) appear as minuscule in comparison. Do you mind if I ask what profession? I'm a computer technician myself, and at 49 still soaking up as much knowledge about sciences and technologies (and fishing of course ;D) as I can. An "old school" geek and damn proud of it! :)  While I could be wrong about the money changing hands in my previous statement ::), the part about my understanding the damage that is being done by the "gravel grab" and its imaginary effect on potential flooding all sort of "flows" ::) along logically for me.

Quote
The fraser may be depositing sediment in places different from historic depositories, however, it is not 100% due to mother nature.  Logging, development, channel migration, changes in flow and many other factors are at play.  Nature is just trying to get back to balance and cannot happen if we continue to monkey with it.  As far as catastrophic events go...They have always happened and always will no matter how hard we try to prevent them.   All we can do is try to stay out of the way, (locate your infrastructure, homes and other facilities out of the way
Definitely, all of the things that "we" do have a cumulative effect on the environment, I wouldn't even consider arguing against that. And when Nature unleashes her worst, yep, get out of the way quick!

Quote
P.S. Like I've said in a few other threads, this gravel and sediment is not just necessary in the river.  These sediments and nutrients are critical to sea life and also recharges coastal erosion points. 
Yes, definitely, no disagreement there either.

Maybe glog is working for the provincial liberals. :o
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Rodney on March 02, 2008, 02:43:00 PM
Posting these for Chris, his comments to follow.

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/cgadsden/080302_1.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/cgadsden/080302_2.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/cgadsden/080302_3.jpg)
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on March 02, 2008, 03:37:30 PM
clownfish,
I'm a biologist for the State of Washington.  I don't claim to be an expert, I'm not a hydro geo morphologist, nor am I an expert in any one field, (not even close).  I'm a wildlife habitat biologist who predominantly spends my time up to my neck with the Endangered Species Act.  I spend most my time around road construction and consulting with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, US Fish and Wildlife Services and National Marine Fisheries to get concurrance and work out project mitigation agreements.  Consequently, I have been to a number of classes and conferences these last couple years where many topics dealt with construction practices.
BTW, it's interesting to look at those photos Rodney posted.  Even though they are only a snapshot and don't tell the whole story, a picture can tell you how seriously the contractor and funding entity are taking their environmental responsibilities.   
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: clownfish on March 02, 2008, 04:01:36 PM
Bentrod, sounds like you're one of the people that have the privilege, and burden, of "walking the fine green line" (to twist the phrase a bit). Progress, in its many forms is necessary, but not at the expense of the environment, and you've got the "fun" job of trying to strike the balance, I don't envy you. Pleasure meeting you.

The second photo seems to show that they are well on their way to the 5 metres of depth they want to excavate to.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on March 02, 2008, 07:11:11 PM
I love my job.  I don't always make a ton of friends, but at least I can still sleep at night with a clean conscience.  It was nice meeting you too clownfish.  We'll have to hook up next October when I come up for my annual BC fishing trip.  Typically we bring a couple RV's and stay at the Vedder Campground.  We fish hard and relax even harder.  We have great BBQ's in the rain and go through a ton of cold ones. 

As far as the picture goes...Are there any silt fences, re fueling stations, plastic over the spoils, or other things to reduce sedimentation or petroleum to the fraser?   
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on March 02, 2008, 09:33:40 PM
I love my job.  I don't always make a ton of friends, but at least I can still sleep at night with a clean conscience.  It was nice meeting you too clownfish.  We'll have to hook up next October when I come up for my annual BC fishing trip.  Typically we bring a couple RV's and stay at the Vedder Campground.  We fish hard and relax even harder.  We have great BBQ's in the rain and go through a ton of cold ones. 

As far as the picture goes...Are there any silt fences, re fueling stations, plastic over the spoils, or other things to reduce sedimentation or petroleum to the fraser?   
I cannot answer your questions bentrod as I was on the far edge of the river when I shot the photo's. The excavations as you can see are going full bore as the date they have to be out of the river is March 15 unless an extension is granted.

The ad hoc committee after completing the power point presentation is presently working on some other options to prevent more of this destruction of fish habitat in the future. As those that know the river well know this has nothing to do with flood protection but is all about getting the gravel. By the way does anyone know what 400,000 cm of gravel would be worth, excluding any trucking costs etc. on the open market.

The ad hoc committee will be making a presentation tomorrow night at a PFRCC wild Salmon meeting tomorrow night in Fort Langley and also looking into holding a public meeting in the near future to discuss this issue.

As a side note while up at the site yesterday taking the photo's a chap pulls up where I was parked and asked "not planning on dumping garbage here are you" Of course anyone that knows the Leaf Mobile knows I usually have bags of garbage from the bags I have along the Vedder in the back along with other junk but I found this a bit of a insult after the work we have done with the CVRCC the last 6 years.

If I would have a bit quicker on the uptake I should have said " No way would I consider polluting the environment like you see going on right out in front of us as the environment of the Fraser River is being compromised in so many ways right now"

He would not have understood I am sure as most of the public has been brain washed into thinking this work is the end all to prevent a major flood. I am glad many are standing up to correct this way of thinking but it will be a uphill battle as most of those with the power seem to have the upper hand, for the time being.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: troutbreath on March 02, 2008, 09:49:59 PM
From what I've read this gravel removal goes on 24/7 till March 15. I don't see any form of lighting to help with the removal at night. Must be a real top notch operation. Also read some fluff from a first nation guy who became a expert on the gravel problem by living by the river. I would suggest he back that up with some education. An illusionist would make that guy believe he was Napoleon by making him see Josaphine. :)
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on March 03, 2008, 06:09:00 AM
Yes the article you refer to was in last Thursday's Vancouver Province, I believe I sent it to Rodney, maybe he will post it. I agree it was not very factual, I would hope more people would become guardians of our river systems and not bent on continuing to destroy them and the fish stocks at the same time.

I guess some governments are more worried about carbon taxes these days.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: clownfish on March 03, 2008, 08:10:12 AM
Quote
I guess some governments are more worried about carbon taxes these days.
Chris, while I'm all for everyone trying to do as much as possible to reduce the damage to the environment that "we" have been doing, about the only incandescent lights we have at home are the ones in the fridge and stove, and I try to make certain that every scrap of paper, metal, plastic, and glass that comes into the house is sent for recycling when we're done with it, etc., etc. I don't like having my arms twisted, I truly feel that the carbon tax is just "smoke and mirrors" (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!). They call it revenue neutral, what a laugh! It's not revenue neutral for the tax payers. Then they hand out $100.00 to every man, woman, and child in the province. Call me cynical if you like (I am somewhat ;D), but I'm pretty sure there is an election coming around soon, otherwise why would they bring out the "carrots to lead the donkeys" with. That money could be better spent on a wide range of uses, including enhancements to the hatchery programs as a way of mitigating some of the damage from this "gravel grab", and other threats to the various fisheries. Like I mentioned above, I honestly believe it's all about payoffs to, or from, their past and future financial supporters, friends, and relatives.

Quote
I love my job.  I don't always make a ton of friends, but at least I can still sleep at night with a clean conscience.  It was nice meeting you too clownfish.  We'll have to hook up next October when I come up for my annual BC fishing trip.  Typically we bring a couple RV's and stay at the Vedder Campground.  We fish hard and relax even harder.  We have great BBQ's in the rain and go through a ton of cold ones.
Bentrod, that sounds like an idea. Can you give me a guess as to when, I’m currently figuring out my vacation days for July 08-June 09, the wife has suggested camping at that location a few times, so I can easily set a few days aside around a weekend for then. You can send replies to me at clownfish@live.ca

Tight Lines
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: glog on March 03, 2008, 02:55:18 PM
bought into scare tactics in regards to the flooding.

Wrong!!

What I haven't bought into is the scare and fear mongering tactics used by the enviro's to stop all projects:
statements like millions of fish are going to die, all habitiat is going to be destoyed, Fraser valley turned into giant gravel pit.

The powerpoint is a classic exagageration of number manipulation and exaggeration.

The whole idea as i see it, behind these gravel holes is to remove the gravel, then gravel  from higher up moves down and in fills the holes and so on thus preventing the gravel acuumualting further downstream and thus reduce the potentail for flooding.

Its to bad that guys can't see the overall benfits, instead of looking at the area of the gravel removal alone.  The direct benfits from gravel removal at spring bar are not at spring bar, itself its downstream all the way to mission such that its 400,000 tons less gravel being dumped down there by dumping it into the newly created holes.


As for the loss of habitat I don't see any. By the time the spring has come and gone, these gravel holes will be filled in long before the summer and fall fish seasons and a full year before the pinks come in again, thus creating the same or better habitat than what's there right now. 

So no I'm not being brainwashed like the others by these wild exaggeration, poor and/or selective science, and failure to look at the overall picture.

As for the liberals and NDP I don't like any of them, but I do like to work and if these enviro groups continue to stop,delay legitimate projects then we will run out of work . Maybe that's not too bad , we can all become fishing guides living of the americans. If they have any money left.

Like I said stop the wild exaggeration and lets get back to a balance, where legitimatre projects can be completed and still maintain a healthy enviroment instead of this no development at any cost mentallity. 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: speycaster on March 03, 2008, 04:30:15 PM
Glog i thought it was "any development no matter the cost" in BC now. Then there are those like glog whose only master is the dollar. Some just have to butcher the environment to pay for all things they bought without the money to pay for them, i think it is called over extended. Just one pay cheque from bankruptcy. ;D ;D
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on March 03, 2008, 06:05:45 PM
Chris, last I checked, the cost of gravel charged to a state project (Washington) is usually 2-3 dollars per yard, up to $10 US if it is premium material and the market has driven it that far up. 

As far as glog's comments go, I can only say wow!  Chris and others have about as hard evidence as it gets.  It is not selective, or biased.  Going to a de watered spawning bed and finding dead fish is pretty conclusive.  Cause: no water, Effect: dead fish.  1+1 = you guessed it 2. 

BTW, we are not advocating for no growth.  It is called smart growth and should be paid for by those who proffit financially from it, not the tax payers. 

One other thing...There are other sources of gravel.  As I see it, the only reason the govt. is getting it from rivers is it is easier and the proffit margin is higher. 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: glog on March 05, 2008, 09:22:02 AM
Same old same old rhetoric and exaggeration's.

Speycaster, what do you expect us humans to do to earn a living if there is NO development at any cost.  Maybe you well off and don't need to work but the rest of us do.  All I'm saying is that there is always a balance between development and nature and both can be sustained.  Nice to see the NDP up to ther old tactcis once again. Every time they get in they effectively kill the BC economy.

As for the dried up spawning beds, I see them all the time caused by mother nature not gravel extraction. 
Example last year on the Fraser no one mentioned that last year was one of the lowest flows on record for the Fraser and that the dried up spawning beds were the result. No it was all blamed on the gravel extraction.

also, ever been to the chehalis lately and seen whats happened to the spawning beds over there.

This is typical enviro exaggeration, enviro's see a dried up channel with a six dead fish in it then start blaming it on humans and expanding how millions of fish are going to die. I call the " chicken little sky is falling tactic" or the end of the world is coming.

finally, as for the gravel. I got news for you the gravel they are removing is low quality gravel, not high quality. so no huge dollars in it just a little bit.

And I for one support the gravel removal and will continue to support reasonbale development  as long as it is does in a reasonable manner which it seems to be doing, despite all the exaggerations and fear mongering being created
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on March 05, 2008, 10:01:08 AM
Like I said before, I'm not against development, just development at all costs.  Not only is it smart growth, but it's also responsible growth.   Just because it's easy to get resources from somewhere or build somewhere doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.  And, like it or not, maximizing a proffit is not a "right". 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on March 05, 2008, 10:11:28 AM
One more thing... Hasty decisions and poor planning often results in construction site injuries and unforseen environmental impacts. Glog, now that you have at least come out and officially admitted that you're proffiting from this gravel take, maybe you can tell us why there are no hi-vis fences, silt fences, plastic on spoils, runoff berms, water quality ponds, re fueling stations, vegetable oil for hydraulic fluid in the tractors, etc. that are always required for this work in water bodies like this one in the US, without exception?  I was going to say gravel extraction, but extraction for extraction purposes has all but been outlawed in the US.  The USACE still gets away with dredging to keep shipping lanes open, but that's about it.    P.S. I'd really like to see the environmental mitigation agreement, (in other words, what is the govt. doing to try to repair the damage they're doing)?  Are they going back and putting more woody debrit in, planting more riparian vegetation, opening up any side channels to add to stream complexity, etc.? 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: glog on March 05, 2008, 02:40:41 PM
bentrod. FYI I am not making a single cent of any gravel removal and have absolutely nothing to do with the Fraser gravel other than a third party observer, who happens to live, work and pay taxes close to the Fraser River and has watched the slow degradation of this amazing river system through stupidity and lack of action.

The bottom line is that the fraser river is shallowing at a large rate and will continue to do so unless we intervene to help out.  Blame forestry. whoever it doesnt matter, and before anyone cries BS think about the old paddle steamers going up beyond hope.

All I wish is that the NIMBY's would stick thier heads out of the ground and realize whats going on.

As for the safety issues, My guess it's a non union job and the union is now using its tactics as well to shut it down, to make it go union.

Another special interest group, thats had its day.

Nice to see the tactics have not changed if someone dare to challenge the almighty enviro's.

Step one Discredit them

a)  Saying they are for total destruction of enviroment at any costs
b)  Accuse them of making money or some how benefitting from the challenge
c)  bring up worker safety issues or other attacks and slanders

Step two
start the name calling

step three
cut them off from the platform or shut down thier opinions

This is right out of the political , or enviro or any speciall interest group play book.

I for one are not going to take it any more, the balance will be restored one way or another,

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: troutbreath on March 05, 2008, 04:01:35 PM
Back in the day of steamships etc, the paddle wheeler was used on rivers that were shallow, like the Fraser. When the railway went in the paddle wheeler went out. They used them in Alberta and Saskatchewan too. But things change and railways mostly displaced the wheeler. It wasn't gravel building up that stopped them from using them.

I think you just have some sort of longing for the old days of the paddle wheeler, and all the jobs that were lost when they left. ;D Get a job with C.N. I used to work on their ships. No paddle wheelers though, that was too long ago. ::) I quit because they only gave you two weeks vacation.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on March 05, 2008, 04:52:26 PM
Glog, please read this carefully, because it is very apparent that you haven't read any of the other posts. 

News flash, shallowing of rivers happens.  It's nothing new, it's nothing to worry about.  Unless this material is highly toxic or radioactive, it is meant to be in the river and eventually make it out to the coast line.

We are not using scare tactics.  Some of the world's premier experts on hydrology and the environment have weighed in and to my knowledge, they have firm science on their side and all agree.  Which, by the way, who ever approved this gravel grab only has emotional logic.  That is exactly why they tried to sell it to the public as flood control.  Now that they have been called out, they are backing off their stance and are looking for other reasons to justify their actions.  No one has yet to flip flop on the environmental side. 

As far as the non-union job thing goes..I seriously doubt that the union sabotaged the project to cause the fatality so it could then become a union job.  It's because the job was so poorly thought out and hastily executed.  Also, you act like this is a huge effort by rich environmental fat cats.  Last time I checked, most of this work to hold government responsible is being done by the minority and volunteers like Chris and Rod.  Correct me if I'm wrong, Chris and Rod, but you're not driving a new mercedes financed by the earth liberation front are you? 

BTW, my special interest group play book for dummies 2 ed. comes out next week.  I know, I am already stinking rich from my  environmental work, but I just need more money so I can compete with my other filthy rich environmental mafia friends, (trying to be sarcastic).   
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: glog on March 06, 2008, 08:15:28 AM
Missed the point totally as usual.

Just try and get a paddle wheeler up the Fraser today. Duh!!

"News flash, shallowing of rivers happens.  It's nothing new, it's nothing to worry about.  Unless this material is highly toxic or radioactive, it is meant to be in the river and eventually make it out to the coast line. "

Had a good laugh at this statement.  Filling in rivers with gravel and silt is now ,nothing new. Guess you haven't heard of the Coquitlam River.

Its a good thing that I fully read lots and not just the parts I like.

As for the fatality is is not only irresponsible its completely in bad taste to use a fatality to forward ones own agenda.  Especially when one is not aware of the full facts surrounding it.

 I just love the woods used to describe things " some of the world's premier experts", whatabout the rest.   There are premier scientists in hydrology that are support and see the need for the gravel removal.

If these are the same premier scientists that produced the powerpoint presentation then they had better return their degrees.

Don't use scare tactics.  What a joke.  What about "Millions of fish are going to die".  "Salmon on the brink of extinction", work will destroy all the habitat. and environment. Its just one scare tactic after another. The area being worked when stretched out is equivalent to 20 weaver creek spawning channels.
Scare tactics and wild exaggerations, all designed to scare Joe public to blindly support the enviro cause without fully looking into all the facts.

Then these are applied in various forms to anybody daring to do any development or work near any stream anywhere in the world.

In the past humans were out of control and created huge environmental problems and developed without thinking, not doubt there. However now we have gone the complete opposite where nothing gets done  and huge delays occur in project development despite having reputable scientific and accurate work done on the projects which shows they can be completed in an environmentally friendly or even beneficial way.  It does not matter how much work gets done there are those radicals out there that just won't accept it as it dares to challenge there opinion.

Its time we brought back common sense to the development and not these wild exaggerations and fear mongering caused by the elite few who have their own personal drums to beat!!!







Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on March 06, 2008, 03:27:35 PM
Missed the point totally as usual.

Just try and get a paddle wheeler up the Fraser today. Duh!!

"News flash, shallowing of rivers happens.  It's nothing new, it's nothing to worry about.  Unless this material is highly toxic or radioactive, it is meant to be in the river and eventually make it out to the coast line. "

Had a good laugh at this statement.  Filling in rivers with gravel and silt is now ,nothing new. Guess you haven't heard of the Coquitlam River.

Its a good thing that I fully read lots and not just the parts I like.

As for the fatality is is not only irresponsible its completely in bad taste to use a fatality to forward ones own agenda.  Especially when one is not aware of the full facts surrounding it.

 I just love the woods used to describe things " some of the world's premier experts", whatabout the rest.   There are premier scientists in hydrology that are support and see the need for the gravel removal.

If these are the same premier scientists that produced the powerpoint presentation then they had better return their degrees.

Don't use scare tactics.  What a joke.  What about "Millions of fish are going to die".  "Salmon on the brink of extinction", work will destroy all the habitat. and environment. Its just one scare tactic after another. The area being worked when stretched out is equivalent to 20 weaver creek spawning channels.
Scare tactics and wild exaggerations, all designed to scare Joe public to blindly support the enviro cause without fully looking into all the facts.

Then these are applied in various forms to anybody daring to do any development or work near any stream anywhere in the world.

In the past humans were out of control and created huge environmental problems and developed without thinking, not doubt there. However now we have gone the complete opposite where nothing gets done  and huge delays occur in project development despite having reputable scientific and accurate work done on the projects which shows they can be completed in an environmentally friendly or even beneficial way.  It does not matter how much work gets done there are those radicals out there that just won't accept it as it dares to challenge there opinion.

Its time we brought back common sense to the development and not these wild exaggerations and fear mongering caused by the elite few who have their own personal drums to beat!!!








I suggest you goggle "Big Bar Gravel Fish Kill 2006" and maybe you will change your opinion about the wild exaggerations and fear mongering you refer too. I would be interested on your remarks about what went on here in 2006.

I can tell you first hand if it was not for the work of  "an elite few" that were monitoring Spring Bar this year things would have been a lot worse as once again pink and chum redds would have been dewatered. The designed bridge to access the bar was increased 2 fold in lenght to prevent this dewatering.

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Rodney on April 03, 2008, 06:56:58 PM
Posting these from today for Chris. His report to come.

(http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/forum/IMG_0729.jpg)

(http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/forum/IMG_0731.jpg)

(http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/forum/IMG_0732.jpg)
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on April 03, 2008, 07:59:37 PM
Thanks Rodney for posting the pictures.
A few of us made a trip up to Spring Bar on the Fraser River for a TV shoot with Shaw TV this afternoon. The purpose was to give the Ad Hoc committees perspective on this gravel excavation project that the Provincial Government has been promoting as a good thing to do for flood protection.

When one travels up the river and sees the size of the Fraser it is laughable that anyone would say by digging the hole you see in one of the photo it will help in flood protection. Of course anyone that has followed this story closely this year will realize that those that know anything about river hydraulics have been presenting the science behind my previous statement. Many have read the power point presentation giving all this science. I must add, you and I repeat you could never have enough equipment or resources to take enough gravel from this huge river to do one bit of good as far as flood control.

Then it is all the prime fish habitat that has and is being destroyed by this and other gravel excavation projects that is really disturbing. The Provincial Ministry of the Environment as well as FOC are allowing this to happen and they should be ashamed of themselves. I feel it is not the government's staff who are to blame but it is because some politicans are controlling things by silencing or shuffle off those that that go against what some elected officials want hear and do. Something is wrong here and I am glad so many organizations have joined together to try to change things. We all know what people power did with the Pitt River proposed Run of The River project.

This project is nothing more than a gravel grab for the money that can be made by some.

Thanks to all the took part today with special thanks to Great River Fishing Adventures including Dean and Ryan our boat captain who provided the jet boat for the afternoon. I am glad to be part of a group that gives so freely of their time trying to protect our fish for the future, it certainly is not an easy task let me tell you.


PS
Note the piers in one photo that were left in after the bridge structure was removed. I guess they will be coming back again for more gravel in the years ahead. This could be a bit of a boat hazard as well as catching a drift net or two. Maybe the freshet will wash them out.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on April 16, 2008, 05:27:24 PM
All valley residents should get behind this gravel removal
The Province
Published: Monday, February 11, 2008
A huge gravel-removal operation on the Fraser River near Agassiz and the Seabird Island native reserve is being criticized by a small group of environmentalists.
Their target is the extraction of 400,000 cubic metres of gravel, now under way to reduce the risks of flooding from the Fraser's annual spring run-off.
They're saying it will lead to a fish kill similar to one in 2006 in which millions of pink salmon hatchlings were destroyed in a nearby site (where about 50,000 cubic metres of gravel were removed).
The 400,000 metres of gravel currently being taken from Spring Bar represent about five per cent of the bar's total area, which is about half the size of Stanley Park.
The work is being done now because the gravel slated for removal is above the Fraser's water level, which will be much higher when the upcountry snows melt later this spring.
As Seabird Island Chief Clem Seymour points out, taking the gravel out of the bar will divert the fast-flowing river away from his reserve's shoreline.
Over the past few years, the native community has lost about 480 hectares of its land to river erosion caused by gravel buildup.
And like other Fraser Valley communities, Seabird Island faces serious flooding threats each spring from the rising, fast-moving waters.
The band and a private contractor are doing the work with the help of the B.C. government, which has provided $564,000 to build a temporary bridge to the gravel-removal site and has waived its usual royalty fee.
The federal fisheries department has also issued a gravel-removal permit. Indeed, everyone involved has learned a few lessons from the 2006 fiasco, the department says.
For example, the temporary bridge has been designed so water flowing underneath it benefits downstream salmon-nesting sites.
Full-time environmental monitoring is also taking place while the work is being done.
Yet, the hard-core environmentalists won't let the issue go and insist that, in effect, the sky is falling.
That's not the case.
The various levels of government and the Seabird Island natives are doing the job properly, with due respect for the environment and with the aim of protecting both people and property.
For this, they are to be congratulated -- not scorned by those who seem to have an unduly pessimistic view of what humans can achieve when they work together.



Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Nicole on April 16, 2008, 05:53:58 PM

Hard core environmentalists? The sky is falling? Jesus Louise!

What a garbage article, talk about poor pensmanship.

Chris I told you not to wear that Patchouli to the last meeting!

 ::)
Nicole
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on April 16, 2008, 06:16:37 PM

Hard core environmentalists? The sky is falling? Jesus Louise!

What a garbage article, talk about poor pensmanship.

Chris I told you not to wear that Patchouli to the last meeting!

 ::)
Nicole
Yes the article is full of holes, excuse the pun. ;D ;D
The hard core environmentalists are still working on this. :o
The last few days the power point presentation has been shown and discussed with the Sports Fishing Advisory Board on Vancouver Island and at the BC Wildlife Federation annual meeting in Salmon Arm.

With the resignation British Columbia's Solicitor General a couple of weeks ago we now be dealing with his replacement. Of course John Les was one of the main advocates of gravel removal on The Fraser River, maybe the new John will have a different opinion.

We also have asked for a meeting with the Environment Minister to discuss this file as he should be working to prevent the loss of Fish Habitat not destroying it.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Nicole on April 16, 2008, 07:13:55 PM
Hmm, John Les, a land developer, supporter of gravel removal?

Who woulda thunk? I hope he rots in prison.

 >:(
Nicole
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: troutbreath on April 16, 2008, 10:13:37 PM
I think the replacement guy you have to deal with might be a closet horse beater ;D Don't bring a knife to a gun fight, bring your riding crop.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on April 21, 2008, 06:37:07 PM

To hear an interview Dr. Roseanu did today please go to the link below. It is on episode #4. I believe it gives a very good insight on what went on at Spring Bar this year. It is about 20 minuets long.




                www.letsgooutdoorsradio.com
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on April 24, 2008, 10:13:22 PM
Scare tactics’ used to approve gravel mining, say critics
By Robert Freeman - Chilliwack Progress - April 24, 2008    |    |      |    | 

Fraser Valley politicians are using scare tactics to open the door to an unprecedented “gravel grab” in the Fraser River under the guise of flood protection, says Dr. Marvin Rosenau.

And the Fraser Valley Salmon Society, along with the BC Wildlife Federation, the David Suzuki Foundation and other environmental groups, is calling for an open forum so the public can hear both sides of the issue.

FVSS president Frank Kwak said it’s hoped a forum will arouse a public outcry similar to the one that caused Environment Minister Barry Penner to back off approving a run-of-the-river project on the Pitt River earlier this month.

“We think we have good evidence that flood protection is not involved here,” Kwak said. “But where it is, we want to support it.”

Rosenau, a former provincial fisheries biologist, cited studies done by UBC and SFU river engineers that suggest gravel removal won’t significantly reduce flood risks in the Fraser River reach between Hope and Mission.

“A lot of fish habitat is being destroyed,” he said, without a clear-cut reduction in flood risk.

The nearly 400,000 cubic metres of gravel removed recently from Spring Bar will drop the river level by, at most, six inches, he said, contrary to statements made by Chilliwack MLAs John Les and Barry Penner.

“This is a political agenda to provide local aggregate companies with gravel,” Rosenau said, to supply the Lower Mainland’s “overheated” development market.

Les agreed in an earlier interview that one removal would not lead to a significant reduction in the river level, but a long-term program would.

But Rosenau said studies show that even removing 4.2 million cubic metres of gravel would result in an overall reduction of less than four inches.

“The river’s not rapidly filling up with gravel” as claimed, he said, because the reach is “so wide, the input in gravel deposits is pretty trivial.”

The B.C. government waived the royalty fees normally charged contractors, and provided $564,000 to the Seabird Island First Nation, the only bidder on the project, to build a bridge to the removal site on Spring Bar.

The use of public money, without any funds collected through royalty fees for mitigation of lost fish habitat, angered society member Nick Basock.

“I don’t know how people can sit around and take that,” he said.

River guide and entrepreneur Dean Werk commended the efforts of the society to keep the gravel removal issue before the public and to reign in the politicians.

“This is a disgrace to us and to all the general public of the Lower Mainland,” he said. “I really hope we can get a public forum ... so they all can understand what’s going on.”

Past FVSS president Sandy Ritchie said gravel has been taken out of the river since 1880.

“I would like to see a public forum,” he said, but pointed out that Chilliwack was “built from river gravel and most of the dikes were built with river gravel.”

“This Spring Bar thing ain’t anything new,” he said.

However, Kwak said if the FVSS had not pushed for changes to the bridge at Spring Bar this year “we would have had dewatering in the same fashion as 2006.”

Millions of pink salmon eggs were lost at Big Bar that year when a causeway was built instead of a bridge to give trucks access to the site. The causeway blocked the river water flowing over the nesting sites.

Kwak and Rosenau also said federal fisheries did not do the required assessment of the impact of the gravel removal at Spring Bar, despite the department’s own report following the Big Bar incident.

Rosenau said 10 hectares of prime juvenile Chinook rearing habitat was destroyed by the Spring Bar removal, as well as other species known to use the habitat for rearing, including stream-rearing sockeye.

rfreeman@theprogress.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on May 08, 2008, 03:46:33 PM

I see by today's letter to the Chilliwack Progress by the new Provincial Solicitor General John van Dongen has not been properly briefed by his staff or the former minister. I will be trying to arrange a meeting so we can get him properly briefed.


Public safety and the environment are linked, says minister
May 07, 2008
I am writing in response to your April 24 article which claims that “scare tactics” are being used in an “unprecedented gravel grab” on the Fraser River.  

The provincial government continues to work with local partners including municipal governments, First Nations and local businesses on gravel projects across the province.  Our sole purpose is to reduce the flood threat to protect public safety.  We will continue to work in an open and transparent way with every effort being made to provide the public with the facts of gravel removal.

The fact is, year after year hundreds of thousands of cubic metres of gravel wash down the Fraser River and are deposited in the stretch from Hope to Mission.  In some areas entire islands nearly half the size of Stanley Park have formed.  As this gravel builds up, the river rises with it.  This causes erosion along the dikes and creates localized flooding issues, all of which put public safety at risk.  Gravel removal along with other flood protection measures such as armouring river banks and good dike maintenance, is a safe and effective way to reduce this risk and protect the thousands of residents in the Fraser Valley. 

We are also mindful of the need to protect the environment.  That’s why extensive studies and surveys of each area are conducted by independent scientists prior to, during and post gravel removal.  This year alone, the province has spent more than $210,000 for biological and hydraulic surveys and studies at the Spring Bar and Hamilton Bar gravel removal sites.  This included having an independent environmental consultant on-site throughout these projects to ensure environmental protection measures were in place. This independent monitor had full authority to stop work at these sites if any environmental concerns arose. 

Protecting the environment and the public are not separate agendas.  Each is intrinsically linked to the other.  That’s why we are moving forward with gravel removal in an environmentally sound and sustainable manner.

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: troutbreath on May 08, 2008, 10:59:28 PM
They spent $210,000 on surveys to help justify and remove gravel. Not to protect fish habitat.

"This independent monitor had full authority to stop work at these sites if any environmental concerns arose."
and lose their job if they either close it down for environmental concerns or suggested it wouldn't stop flooding.

I guess theres always a few people who will take the cheque, no matter what.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on May 09, 2008, 12:20:15 AM
They spent $210,000 on surveys to help justify and remove gravel. Not to protect fish habitat.

"This independent monitor had full authority to stop work at these sites if any environmental concerns arose."
and lose their job if they either close it down for environmental concerns or suggested it wouldn't stop flooding.

I guess theres always a few people who will take the cheque, no matter what.
You have it correct and last year a MOE member was removed from the gravel committee and transferred to another job. A few years ago for the same reason another person had the same thing happen to him. In both cases they were saying things the people that wanted to get at the gravel did not want to hear.

We have being trying to get information on what studies were supposed to be done and it has been nearly impossible and it has now come to filing through the Freedom of Information Act to try and get them but I imagine we will find they were not done properly.

They say they have been transparent on this file but we have not found that to be true so far. Fisheries and Oceans are to blame as well as they have let this go on, destroying fish habitat in the process. I am thankful there is many groups working to stop this or we would have more massive fish kills like happened on Big Bar in 2006, they know we are watching. In this instance they had monitors like they said they had this year but it was the concerned people that eventually got it shutdown not the monitors who just sat and watched it happen.

To me it is similar to the way they are handling the Fish Farm issue. It is very disappointing to me as I supported and worked for this present government as a volunteer for a number of years. ::) :o :( >:(
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on May 26, 2008, 10:47:06 PM
 The Ad hoc committee met again this weekend and are working on getting meetings with Provincial politicians in the Environment and Solicitor General Ministries. The Provincial Government has not handled this issue very well. They try to hid and hope we will go away, disappointing as we all should be doing all we can to protect our fish stocks and their environment.

Also they sending a letter to the Federal Auditor General to look into this issue. As well filing through Freedom of Information to try to obtain information on this file as has been impossible to get information on studies that were supposed to be done pre and post extraction. Most likely they were not done, that is why we can not get them.

Public meeting in the Fall to present our case to the general public and finally trying to get a round table discussion with all government agencies.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: tyee1on on May 27, 2008, 04:25:48 PM
it's all about the money not the fish and not the fisherman they would like to see us all  go away .can't they see that it's not going to happen
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on May 27, 2008, 05:30:14 PM
May sound like a dumb question, but are you allowed to sue the government in Canada like you are in the US? 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on May 27, 2008, 06:28:56 PM
May sound like a dumb question, but are you allowed to sue the government in Canada like you are in the US? 
We have a couple of lawyers look into doing this but they have initially said it would be difficult to get a charge.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on June 12, 2008, 07:02:20 AM
Petitioners want Fraser River mining investigated
B.C. environmentalists fear salmon population will die if gravel is removed
MARK HUME

From Thursday's Globe and Mail


June 12, 2008 at 5:31 AM EDT

VANCOUVER — The Auditor-General of Canada has been asked to investigate a gravel-mining operation on the Fraser River that was approved this year by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans despite concerns it would destroy salmon habitat.

A petition filed by several British Columbia organizations and prominent individuals to Auditor-General Sheila Fraser says removal of 400,000 cubic metres of gravel from Spring Bar, near Agassiz, "will disrupt the river ecosystem and negatively affect fish and fish habitat."

The petitioners include David Suzuki, the internationally known writer, broadcaster and founder of the David Suzuki Foundation; Daniel Pauly, a fisheries scientist at the University of B.C.; Mark Angelo, a conservationist, teacher, writer and chairman of the B.C. Heritage Rivers Program; and Vicky Husband, one of the province's leading environmental advocates.

The B.C. Wildlife Federation, Fraser Valley Angling Guides Association and the Sportfishing Defence Alliance are among the groups that endorsed the petition, which asks for a review of the Fisheries Act authorizations that allowed the mine to proceed in February.

The operation is supported by the B.C. government, which provided $564,000 from the provincial flood mitigation budget to build a temporary access bridge to Spring Bar.

The mine is being operated by the Seabird Island Indian Band, which is selling the highly valued gravel to the construction industry for an undisclosed amount.

The petition alleges that, contrary to statements by DFO and provincial officials, the removal of gravel will not reduce the flood threat on the Fraser and will cause extensive damage to salmon habitat.

"We believe that the DFO has been deliberately obstructionist in regards to the transparency of its decisions ... and has failed to meet the intent of Canadian fisheries and environmental law in respect to Fraser River gravel removal," Frank Kwak, acting chairman of the Fraser River Ad Hoc Stewardship Gravel Removal Committee, said in a letter to Ms. Fraser that accompanied the petition.

Mr. Kwak said salmon stocks have fallen to dangerously low levels on the West Coast, and one reason is the failure of government to protect fish habitat.

He said that "DFO's outright refusal to meet the intent of its statutory obligations ... is a key example as to why there is little chance for salmon in Canada to survive into the next century in any meaningful way."

When the mine was approved, officials said the project would be carried out "in a way that minimizes the potential harm to fish habitat and fish stocks in the river."

But the petitioners say that has not been done and that "over time [the mine] will partially or completely dewater a major pink salmon spawning habitat (the right channel at Spring Bar) equivalent to the capacity for several hundred thousand reproducing fish."

The letter to Ms. Fraser states that DFO has approved "unmitigated and uncompensated destruction of fish habitat via large-scale gravel removal from the lower Fraser River for reasons that are largely unsubstantiated (i.e., the removal of this gravel largely does not provide significant benefits to flood protection or erosion)."

Although the Fraser routinely approaches flood conditions, digging down the river bed by removing gravel bars may not alleviate that threat, said Michael Church, a professor emeritus in the department of geography at UBC, because the river's flow can simply shift.

Prof. Church has done research that shows about 200,000 to 300,000 cubic metres of gravel washes into the lower river each year. The Spring Bar operation is removing more gravel from one place in a river than has yet been done in Western Canada.


Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on June 12, 2008, 08:44:22 PM
Auditor asked to check gravel claims
By Robert Freeman - Chilliwack Progress - June 11, 2008

Up to 400,000 cubic metres of gravel was removed at Spring Bar near Seabird Island – the largest gravel removal operation in the Fraser river ever. Black Press File

An ad hoc coalition of B.C. environmental groups is asking the federal auditor-general to look into government flood-proofing claims to justify its approval of gravel mining in the Fraser River.

“The hope is the auditor-general will look at it and agree with us and there will be mitigation for ... loss of fish habitat or compensation for the damages done,” Frank Kwak, president of the Fraser Salmon Society, told The Progress. “We can’t just keep taking gravel out of this river unless there’s concrete proof there’s going to be flooding (if gravel is not removed).”

The petition follows the largest gravel removal operation in the river ever approved by federal fisheries, up to 400,000 cubic metres at Spring Bar near Seabird Island.

The 10-hectare site is considered “exceptional” rearing habitat by many for juvenile sockeye and chinook salmon, as well as habitat for other species protected by federal legislation, according to the petition sent to Auditor-General Sheila Fraser by the Fraser River Ad Hoc Stewardship Gravel Removal Committee.

The committee includes the B.C. Wildlife Federation, Fraser Valley Salmon Society, Sportfishing Defence Alliance, Fraser Valley Angling Guides Association, Chilliwack/Vedder River Cleanup Coalition and the Alouette River Management Society.

“Gravel removal at Spring Bar extensively damaged fish habitat with little or no gain to flood protection and erosion,” the committee charges in the petition.

“It is ... likely that this removal, over time, will partially or completely de-water a major pink salmon spawning habitat equivalent to the capacity for several hundred thousand reproducing fish.”

After an estimated 2.2 million pink salmon hatchlings were lost in a “de-watering” event at a gravel removal operation at Big Bar in March, 2006, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans issued a report with 10 recommendations, including the immediate creation of a multi-agency technical committee to jointly review future gravel extraction projects before approvals are made.

However, the committee believes technical advice has been ignored and most of the recent approvals to remove gravel “are the result of political pressure on the DFO to provide aggregate for the construction industry and have very little to do with flood or erosion control.”

“It is our opinion that the senior governments (provincial and federal) are using a climate of fear of flooding to justify gravel removal for the development industry in the local geographic area,” the committee says in the petition.

The DFO is “capitulating to local demands” for gravel removal, the petition continues, “at the expense of habitat and without due consideration to the appropriate habitat science and flood-prevention engineering, or the appropriate environmental legislation or policies.”

“We believe that the DFO has been deliberately obstructionist in regards to the transparency of its decisions,” the petition concludes, “has knowingly refused to require of proponents adequate information and assessment and mitigation and compensation for damage done, and has failed to meet the intent of Canadian fisheries and environmental law in respect to Fraser River gravel removal.”

The petition asked the Auditor-General to consider ten key questions including:

- Why the Spring Bar removal was approved when engineering and river studies “specifically” recommended against it due to the lack of flood or erosion benefits or benefits;

- Why the DFO ignored requirements under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to engage in full public consultations when it was “absolutely clear” that stewardship groups were “highly concerned” about the potential damage;

- Why the DFO held off authorization until several days before contractors arrived on site when a prior agreement states all approvals must be completed by Nov. 1 of the preceding year.

“The result of this last-minute authorization is that DFO ensured that the stewardship groups had no opportunity for review of this project, and were completely caught off-guard in respect to being able to provide adequate public comment prior to its commencement,” the committee charges.

rfreeman@theprogress.com

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on June 12, 2008, 09:05:23 PM
Looking back at earlier threads, I think many of us can say a big fat "I told you so".  Lack of silt fence, Hi vis fence, clean machinery, fueling stations, driving pile without curtains while elevin were in the gravel, and other basic best management practices are proof that the govt. can give a rat's @$$ about protecting the environment.  Not only should someone loose their job over this, someone should go to jail. 

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on June 13, 2008, 09:20:21 AM
Today's Chilliwack Progress.

I certainly respect Mr Kotyk's opinion and it is good news to see the excellent migration of this years pinks.  It should provide some excellent returns in two years. However there is so so so much more to this file that will be brought out I am sure as time passes.

Thank goodness we have watch dog groups that keep an eye on such things as past history has seen so much fish habitat destroyed over the years, I donot think anyone can dispute that.

Of course this concern on the Fraser River was strengthened because of the Big Bar incident in 2006 when millions of pink and some chum redds were destroyed as a causeway blocked a side stream of the Fraser. It is documented on other treads on this forum so I will not rehash it any further. It was not only at this site but in a couple of others I was told damage was done that year.

I sympathize with FOC officials that get caught in the political arena as it makes their job very tough to do, I appreciate many of their efforts under difficult conditions and fiscal restraints.

However if we all donot do everything we can our fish stocks and their habitat will disappear forever.

I spend many sleepless nights over these concerns but I know that I and many others are doing our best, we are only volunteers with nothing to gain other than hopefully leaving the fish for those that follow us, your families and mine. I know I repeat this time after time but it is important to me as I now have 4 grandchildren and I think I owe it to them to fight for the fish until I make that last cast and I plan to do that as uncomfortable as it gets at times.




Pink salmon not at risk from gravel mine, says fisheries official
By Robert Freeman - Chilliwack Progress - June 12, 2008   

A claim by environmental groups that a massive gravel removal operation in the Fraser River near Agassiz will have a major impact on pink salmon isn’t being borne out by the numbers, says Mel Kotyk, senior DFO official in the area.

Kotyk said yesterday he has only seen media reports of a petition sent to federal Auditor-General Sheila Fraser asking her to look into government flood-proofing claims to justify approval of the Spring Bar removal operation, despite possible damage to fish habitat.

“There’s not much I can say on the petition itself,” Kotyk said, but he objected to the groups’ claim that the removal, “over time, will partially or completely de-water a major pink salmon spawning habitat” in the area.

Kotyk said about 450 million pink salmon move down the river on average, but this year “we’ve got about 550 million.”

“We’ve got about 100 million more than average, about 25 percent more than normal,” he said. “The concern of a major impact just doesn’t bear out,” he said.

Chilliwack MLAs John Les and Barry Penner could not be reached for comment yesterday.

In the petition, the Fraser River Ad Hoc Stewardship Gravel Removal Committee charges the DFO “ignored” technical advice that gravel removal at Spring Bar earlier this year would not significantly reduce flood risks.

Up to 400,000 cubic metres of gravel was removed from the 10-hectare site near Seabird Island.

“It is our opinion that the senior governments (provincial and federal) are using a climate of fear of flooding to justify gravel removal for the development industry in the local geographic area,” the committee said in the petition.

The DFO is “capitulating to local demands” for gravel removal “at the expense of habitat and without due consideration to the appropriate habitat science and flood-prevention engineering, or the appropriate environmental legislation or policies,” the committee claimed.

Frank Kwak, acting committee chairman, said in a letter sent with the petition to Fraser that the DFO “has been deliberately obstructionist in regards to the transparency of its decisions” and “has knowingly refused to require of proponents adequate information and assessment and mitigation and compensation for damage done, and has failed to meet the intent of Canadian fisheries and environmental law in respect to Fraser River gravel removal.”

The committee includes the B.C. Wildlife Federation, Fraser Valley Salmon Society, Sportfishing Defence Alliance, Fraser Valley Angling Guides Association, Chilliwack/Vedder River Cleanup Coalition and the Alouette River Management Society.







Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: troutbreath on June 13, 2008, 09:53:17 AM
The "senior DFO official" probably was misspelled. The meant "senile DFO official" if he really believes what he's saying. In my opinion it's the case of "I like my paycheck and will say anything to keep getting them" scenario when it comes to government spokespersons. Integrity is not part of the job description, never was. :-\
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on June 19, 2008, 01:18:12 AM
Wrong on a number of fronts. The ad hoc committee does not oppose gravel extraction as long as it is done in a responsible manner and from what I read on another forum it was not done in a responsible environmental manner at all. That was stated by someone that was there.

It has been unbelievable how hard it has to get the information on pre and post extraction engineering studies, it sort of makes one start to believe they may not have been done.

The whole thing from what I gather has not been transparent at all and you get told check with FOC, Solicitor General office, then MOE , Seabird FN and around and round it goes. The good thing about this petition should be that everything will be made available. They say it was too cost around $550,000 to build the bridge but because pressure was put on by the ad hoc committee they increased the lenght to prevent dewatering, it will be interesting when the final cost comes in but I believe that will be obtained by filing through the Freedom of Information. It yours and my taxpayers money too. ???

 

Local MLAs defend gravel removal
By Robert Freeman - :CityChilliwack Progress - June 16, 2008

|
Chilliwack MLAs John Les and Barry Penner are standing by the provincial government’s claim that removing gravel from the Fraser River reduces the risk of flooding.


And Les said the removal of 400,000 cubic metres of gravel last year from a site near Agassiz is “one of the most responsible operations we’ve ever seen” in environmental terms.


Last week, an ad hoc committee of environmental groups asked the federal auditor-general to look into the flood protection claims used to justify the removal at Spring Bar, which they said “extensively damaged fish habitat with little or no gain to flood protection and erosion.”


But a senior federal fisheries official said that pink salmon numbers in the Fraser this year are actually up by 25 percent - 100 million more than the average 450 million - despite the claim of habitat damage.


However, committee members are saying the effects of the Spring Bar operation won’t be seen until the fall of 2009 when adult pinks are spawning in the area, or until the spring of 2010 when the fry are heading to the ocean.


This is the second petition sent to the auditor-general about gravel removal by largely the same B.C. environmental groups.


The David Suzuki Foundation, which signed the first petition in 2004, did not sign on this time, but not because of any disagreement, said spokesman John Werring.


“We’re 100 percent behind it,” he said, but “time constraints” prevented the foundation from signing on to the new petition.


He saw nothing wrong with filing a second petition, which along with other public complaints to the auditor-general, might finally bring about some changes.


“I hope so in the long run,” he said. “At what point do you stop pulling your hair out?”


But Les said he is “disappointed in the continued denial this (environmental) group seems to be in.”


“They simply will not - and aggressively will not - believe that gravel removal from the Fraser River is necessary ... and it puts us all at risk if we take that public policy option,” said the Chilliwack-Sumas MLA.


“They make much of the fact that this was the largest single removal in one location - does anybody stop to think there’s much less environmental damage than taking a little bit from all over the place?”


Les agreed the Spring Bar removal alone had little immediate effect on reducing flood risk.


“The key is this is something that needs to be done every year,” he said, in a number of locations. “Over time the river bottom will be lowered and there will be increased water-handling capability over the whole system.”


He said the provincial government has “bent over backwards” to balance flood protection “with environmental considerations” at Spring Bar and Harrison Bar and at several future locations.


But Les saw little chance of a “constructive dialogue” with the environmental groups as represented by the Fraser River Ad Hoc Stewardship Gravel Removal Committee.


“Their position is no gravel should be removed, and that’s where the disconnect is,” he said. “If we were to follow their advice, we’d be putting the population of certainly the Chilliwack area at long-term risk.”


Chilliwack-Kent MLA Barry Penner said a “managed program of responsibly removing gravel from the Fraser” was a promise that he and Les made in the last provincial election.


“Both John and I were very clear, if elected and our party formed government, we’d support the environmentally-responsible removal of gravel,” he said. “We’re keeping an election commitment.”


rfreeman@theprogress.com

 

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on July 06, 2008, 07:49:37 AM

The file continues.


Deputy minister to meet on gravel issue
By Robert Freeman - Chilliwack Progress - July 03, 2008   
Environmental groups say they’ve run into a “stone wall of silence” in their efforts to work with the provincial government on a long-term strategy for gravel removal operations in the Fraser River.

“We have been trying to engage the government, particularly this provincial government ... and we’ve met with a stone wall of silence,” said John Werring, a biologist at the David Suzuki Foundation. “They do not want to talk about it.”

But yesterday, a ministry spokesperson said Solicitor-General John van Dongen has asked the deputy minister of Emergency Management BC to meet with Werring to discuss his concerns.

Werring was reacting to Chilliwack-Sumas MLA John Les’s suggestion that environmental groups are unalterably opposed to removing any gravel from the river, in spite of the flood protection benefits, so there’s little chance of holding a “constructive dialogue” with them.

“Their position is no gravel should be removed, and that’s where the disconnect is,” Les said in the earlier interview. Les headed the ministry that approves gravel removal operations until he stepped down as Solicitor-General in March.

Les said the environmentalists “simply will not – and aggressively will not – believe that gravel removal from the Fraser River is necessary” to reduce the risk of flooding.

But Werring said the groups that have formed the Fraser River Ad Hoc Stewardship Gravel Removal Committee are not opposed to gravel removal to reduce flood risk – but they do want input into a transparent approval process.

“We all acknowledge that gravel has to come out of the river,” he said, but the ministry won’t meet with the committee to discuss a long-term strategy for gravel removal.

Werring said the committee is also having difficulty getting information out of the ministry about the Spring Bar gravel removal operation earlier this year.

He said the committee was told to make a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act for engineering reports and for an estimate of the economic benefits of the removal, reported to be more than $1.6 million.

Last month, the committee asked the federal auditor-general to look into the Spring Bar removal operation. Up to 400,000 cubic metres of gravel was removed from the 10-hectare site near Seabird Island.

 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: marmot on July 06, 2008, 12:11:29 PM
I know that "site near agassiz" that they are talking about....and if it was responsible, then why was there a light petroleum slick on the slough i was fishing down below it?  BULL$HIT.   
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on July 06, 2008, 01:21:02 PM
I know that "site near agassiz" that they are talking about....and if it was responsible, then why was there a light petroleum slick on the slough i was fishing down below it?  BULL$HIT.   
From what I gather and was told it was from the tug that overturned when putting in the pilings.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on July 24, 2008, 08:41:16 PM
3 of us are meeting in Vancouver this week with the Provincial Solicitor General's people to discuss this mess.

Also we are working on a public information meeting in Chilliwack for this Fall.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on July 25, 2008, 11:14:46 PM
3 of us are meeting in Vancouver this week with the Provincial Solicitor General's people to discuss this mess.

Also we are working on a public information meeting in Chilliwack for this Fall.
Now we  are not as they cancelled out today for some lame excuse. They want us to meet in Victoria in August now. One can see they are trying to avoid a meeting at all costs, disappointing and one can apparently see they are trying to hide from us.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on July 27, 2008, 07:30:08 PM
3 of us are meeting in Vancouver this week with the Provincial Solicitor General's people to discuss this mess.

Also we are working on a public information meeting in Chilliwack for this Fall.
Now we  are not as they cancelled out today for some lame excuse. They want us to meet in Victoria in August now. One can see they are trying to avoid a meeting at all costs, disappointing and one can apparently see they are trying to hide from us.
They changed there mind again so two of us off to Victoria early tomorrow to meet with the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General John van Dongen staff to discuss this file. Darn no fishing but this actually is more important as we work to ensure these projects donot harm more fish habitat.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on August 02, 2008, 04:37:45 PM
Article re our meeting in Victoria.

Chilliwack Progress

Meeting eases gravel removal rift


By Robert Freeman - Chilliwack Progress

Published: July 31, 2008 6:00 PM
Updated: August 01, 2008 2:39 PM

Environmentalists are “cautiously optimistic” an end to the constant conflict over gravel removal in the Fraser River is in sight after a meeting Monday with the associate deputy minister of the Public Safety Ministry.

“At this point we’re cautiously optimistic the government is listening to some of our concerns and they seem to be moving in a direction that might help in the conflict on the Fraser River,” said biologist John Werring.

He and Chris Gadsden, a local member of an ad hoc committee of environmentalists, met with associate deputy minister Wes Shoemaker in Victoria on Monday.

Shoemaker agreed the meeting was “very productive” and he’s confident gravel removal from the Fraser River for flood protection will become a routine matter without the conflict seen in past years.

“This is just part of the long-term and on-going strategy of protecting B.C. from the risk of flooding,” he said.

Shoemaker said he got the message “loud and clear” at the meeting that the committee is not opposed to all gravel removal.

Gadsden said he now believes the ministry is willing to be “more transparent” and provide the committee with information on flood protection benefits from proposed removal sites, and possible impacts on fish habitat.

But he and others say they are “very disappointed” that their local MLA, Barry Penner, who is also B.C.’s environment minister, won’t meet with members of the ad hoc committee.

Penner said yesterday he is willing to meet with committee members in the minister’s office in Victoria, but it’s only fair that local constituents get first dibs on his time in Chilliwack.

“At my constituency office I’m always anxious to meet with constituents,” he said. “That’s my priority right now.”

“I have a lengthy waiting list of people who want to come see me (in Chilliwack),” he added. “They get first draw on my time.”

Penner said he has agreed to meet with local members of the committee in Chilliwack, but to date those meetings haven’t happened because of conflicting schedules.

One of those local committee members, Gwyn Joiner, said he doesn’t understand why Penner won’t meet with the ad hoc committee, “which really knows what’s going on with this gravel issue” unlike himself.

Werring said he believes the ministry is willing to address the committee’s concerns about the way gravel is mined and provide information so the committee can comment on proposed removal sites.

“They don’t want to open up the decision-making process,” he said, but seemed willing to present information to committee members at a future meeting to hear their input.

He said if the ministry follows through on promises to share information on the impact of gravel mining on fish habitat at proposed removal sites, it “would go a long way to resolving the disputes.”

“But until we actually see what’s going on, we won’t know if they are doing what they say they are.”

Werring said the committee is not opposed to all gravel mining, but wants to be assured that the removal sites actually improve flood protection without doing significant harm to fish habitat.

Shoemaker said the ministry’s program aims to “balance fish values with public safety objectives.”

“We will continue to reach out to (all stakeholders) to talk about the program and share with them the many aspects of the science and site selection and those things that will be part of the program.”

Last month, the ad hoc committee asked the federal auditor-general to look into the government’s flood-proofing claims to justify approval of gravel mining in the Fraser River.

The request followed the largest removal operation ever approved by federal fisheries at Spring Bar near Seabird Island.

The Fraser River Ad Hoc Stewardship Gravel Removal Committee includes the B.C. Wildlife Federation, Fraser Valley Salmon Society, Sportfishing Defence Alliance, Fraser Valley Angling Guides Association, Chilliwack/Vedder River Cleanup Coalition and the Alouette River Management Society.

rfreeman@theprogress.com

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on October 05, 2008, 06:45:10 PM
We, the Fraser River Gravel Ad Hoc Committee had our planning meeting today for our meeting with the Environment Minister Barry Penner that is to take place in Vancouver on Tuesday.

I certainly hope they will take our visit seriously and listen carefully to the concerns we have been presenting on how damaging some of these gravel excavations projects have been on fish and their habitat the last few years.

Of course we are not against responsible gravel removal but we feel in a lot of cases it has been just gravel for profit and the proper environmental studies have not been done because of political interference by some. Also the process has not been as transparent as it should be in an open government, a government that should provide answers when asked. This has been very difficult in many cases the last while, hopefully that will change for the good of the fish in the years ahead.

I believe we have a great presentation, we can only hope once again that they listen carefully to it.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Nicole on October 05, 2008, 09:17:16 PM
Watch John Les say that the gravel is for construction, and is quickly corrected by Barry Penner... What a whitewash!

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=NhbHEBzqmGA

John Les is a douche.
Nicole
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on October 05, 2008, 09:32:17 PM
Video no longer avaaible they say, thats interesting. ???

It was there a couple of days ago.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on October 05, 2008, 09:44:59 PM
I am told it is there but some computers can not access it. ???
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Sam Salmon on October 05, 2008, 10:43:18 PM
I am told it is there but some computers can not access it. ???

Sometime Youtube doesn't work too well with IE and will work OK with Firefox, I've also been told the opposite so it's best to switch up, the video is there but Youtube handles a lot of video so it's best to keep trying or come back a bit later.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on October 07, 2008, 07:31:54 PM
Chilliwack Progress

Input sought in Fraser gravel mining


By Robert Freeman - Chilliwack Progress

Published: October 06, 2008 6:00 PM

A public review of gravel mining sites in the Fraser River is one of the topics that members of an ad hoc environmental committee hope to raise during a meeting today (Tuesday) with B.C. Environment Minister Barry Penner.

“We want to get some transparency in the decision-making process,” committee member Marvin Rosenau said before the meeting, especially the reasons for the proposed removals.

“At this point in time, a lot of that stuff is done in camera,” he said, and what little information the committee has gleaned about past removals was obtained through freedom of information requests.

However, there is a “very transparent and very public” process around gravel removals from the Vedder River where a management advisory committee is in place.

“There’s lot of warts and bumps in the process, but the decision-making is pretty open and transparent,” Rosenau said.

Decisions made behind closed doors about Fraser River gravel removal has led to allegations of political interference and “gravel grabs” for profit, instead of flood protection.

In June, the ad hoc committee asked the federal auditor-general to look into the government’s flood-proofing claims to justify gravel mining approvals in the Fraser.

The request followed the largest removal operation ever approved by federal fisheries at Spring Bar near Seabird Island.

In July, ministry officials met with committee members, but Penner would only meet in his Victoria cabinet office, saying his time in his Chilliwack-Kent riding office was reserved for constituents.

Terry Bodman, a local member of the committee, said he’s hoping for a “positive” outcome from today’s meeting with Penner, which had taken “some time to arrange.”

“I’m looking forward to sitting down with the minister of the environment and working out some issues,” he said.

But he and Rosenau declined to comment on what the committee might do if the meeting with Penner does not produce that positive outcome.

“We’ll see what Barry has to say,” Rosenau said.

Rosenau confirmed again that the committee is not opposed to gravel removal “where it is clearly required” to prevent flooding or erosion, and where “reasonable alternatives are not available.”

But the committee wants to see the science behind any claims of flood protection benefits, he said.

Penner insisted the existing process is “open,” and that he is not aware of any problems the committee has encountered getting scientific information collected by the government before approving removal operations.

“They haven’t written to me to say that,” he said.

Penner refused to comment on whether he believes today’s meeting will have a positive outcome.

“We’ll see what they have to say,” he said. “That’s the purpose of the meeting, I guess.”

Penner and fellow MLA John Les have both stated that their support of “environmentally responsible” gravel removal to protect residents from flood hazards is an election promise they aim to keep.

The Fraser River Ad Hoc Stewardship Gravel Removal Committee includes the B.C. Wildlife Federation, Fraser Valley Salmon Society, Sportfishing Defence Alliance, Fraser Valley Angling Guides Association, Chilliwack/Vedder River Cleanup Coalition and the Alouette River Management Society.

rfreeman@theprogress.com

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on October 07, 2008, 07:34:39 PM

This surfaced while we were at the meeting today, interesting. ::) ???

Chilliwack Progress

NDP charge Penner 'muzzled' scientists


By Robert Freeman - Chilliwack Progress

Published: October 07, 2008 5:00 PM
Updated: October 07, 2008 5:15 PM

BC New Democrats say they have a letter that shows Environment Minister Barry Penner tried to "muzzle" two government scientists who raised concerns in 2003 about gravel mining in the Fraser River.

"It appears that the very MLA who is now the environment minister put political pressure onto the highest levels of the civil service in an attempt to get scientists to defy the government's own moratorium on gravel dredging," NDP environment critic Shane Simpson said in a news release.

The NDP release was issued just as Penner met with members of environmental groups seeking to open the government's decision-making process in approving gravel removals to public review.

The 45-minute meeting in Vancouver ended with no clear path to an agreement.

"I"m not unhappy with the meeting, but I thought there would be more of a meeting of the minds," committee member Terry Bodman said. "There was no meeting of the minds."

Penner was not available for comment.

In the Jan. 29 letter released by the NDP, MLA Penner wrote that he is "increasingly concerned" by reports that two employees in the ministry of water, land and air protection are "suggesting it is BC government policy not to support the removal of gravel from the Fraser River."

"I understand this to be in direct conflict with government policy and will be happy to supply you with more specific information," he wrote.

After asking the deputy minister to confirm the policy of "responsible" gravel removal, Penner added, "If the answer is yes, I think it would be worthwhile to remind your ministry's employees of this policy as well."

The release of the letter comes just days after former government biologist Marvin Rosenau told the media that he was muzzled by east Fraser Valley MLAs for speaking out against a massive housing development in Mission.

The NDP is asking Auditor General John Doyle to review the conduct of Penner, MLA Randy Hawes, MLA John Les and Premier Gordon Campbell for alleged "interference" in the discipline and removal of ministry staff.

The NDP also want the auditor general to investigate the Rosenau case "and "the climate of fear created by the Campbell government in the environmental assessment process."

Rosenau attended yesterday's meeting with Penner, but said he was not aware of the NDP news release.

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: troutbreath on October 07, 2008, 08:41:00 PM
“We’ll see what they have to say,” he said. “That’s the purpose of the meeting, I guess.” (Penner)

I guess or presume or don't care! Sounds like he's meeting with the ad hoc committee just to say he did.

Penner and fellow MLA John Les have both stated that their support of “environmentally responsible” gravel removal to protect residents from flood hazards is an election promise they aim to keep.


So they will keep taking gravel out up there till it floods downstream ::)
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Nicole on October 08, 2008, 11:44:31 AM
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/10/07/bc-gravel-probe-penner.html


B.C.'s Opposition New Democrats are calling for an investigation by the auditor general into whether prior to becoming environment minister, Barry Penner pressured a top government bureaucrat to muzzle two scientists speaking out about environmental concerns.

NDP environment critic Shane Simpson pointed to a five-year-old letter Penner wrote to former deputy environment minister Gord Macatee that, Simpson said, amounts to a call for the silencing of the scientists.

"It's a letter that attempts to intimidate the then-deputy [minister] and put pressure on the deputy to muzzle two of his officials who were raising concerns about gravel extraction from the Fraser [River] or the potential for gravel extraction," he said.

Penner, who wrote the letter prior to being named to the Liberal cabinet, said he contacted the deputy minister on behalf of his constituents, who were confused about the responses they were receiving from ministry bureaucrats about gravel removal from the river.

"I was representing the concerns expressed by local governments in my constituency and acting in my role as the member of the legislature to bring forward the concerns of those local governments," he said.

Penner said his letter requested clarification of the policy on gravel removal because staff working for the ministry were telling local governments the B.C. government did not support gravel extraction.

He said the Liberals campaigned on the "environmentally responsible removal of gravel."

"I did my job as an MLA to seek clarification as to what the understanding was of the ministry as to the government policy," Penner said.

He cited a March 2003 letter he received from Macatee in response. The letter said the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection supported the core principle of a Fraser River management plan: "gravel removal would be allowed for the purpose of flood protection."

Letter was mere request for clarification of policy: Penner
Penner said his letter was not threatening and was not intended to silence the scientists.

"It means exactly what it says, which is if the staff were not aware of what the policy was, it would be good to inform [them] of what it is," he said.

Almost nine months after Penner wrote the letter to the deputy minister of environment, Dr. Marvin Rosenau, a senior government fisheries biologist , said he was reassigned and then seconded to the University of British Columbia. He no longer works for the B.C. government.

Rosenau said in a recent interview that he believes his constant criticism of gravel removal from the Fraser ultimately led to his removal. The other scientist involved was Ross Neuman, who is no longer a member of the Fraser Gravel Technical Committee but still works with the Environment Ministry.

Rosenau said he was also critical of a proposed housing development in the Mission area, but his scientific comments opposing gravel removal were the major irritant that led to his movement from government.

"One of them that clearly had a lot of controversy associated with it, was Fraser River gravel removal," Rosenau said. "They basically punted all the technical guys, at least within the Ministry of Environment fisheries section, off of the gravel committee, when I was reassigned."

Environmentalists and some scientists say gravel removal impacts fish habitat, but others say the gravel must be removed to control potential flood waters.

Simpson said a federal and provincial moratorium against gravel removal on the Fraser River was not lifted until 2004.

The New Democrats want the auditor general to investigate the reassigning of the two scientists, as well as the two projects they expressed concerns about.

© The Canadian Press, 2008
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on October 09, 2008, 08:34:42 PM
By Robert Freeman - Chilliwack Progress

Published: October 09, 2008 6:00 PM

No clear path to resolving the conflict over gravel removal in the Fraser River was reached Tuesday between environmentalists and Environment Minister Barry Penner.

“I’m not unhappy with the meeting, but I thought there would be more of a meeting of the minds,” Terry Bodman, a member of an ad hoc committee of environmental groups, said after the 45-minute meeting in Vancouver.

“There was no meeting of the minds,” he said.

Penner said that, despite the committee’s assurance it does not oppose all gravel mining operations in the Fraser, member Marvin Rosenau “had a tough time coming up with one project where he didn’t have strong objections.”

The minister said he also found it “somewhat confusing” that the committee was proposing a Vedder River management model for the Fraser River when it is “not happy” with the existing model.

In an interview before the meeting, Rosenau said there are “lot of warts and bumps” in the Vedder River model, “but the decision-making is pretty open and transparent.”

Penner insisted there is public input into the Fraser River approvals, and that removing gravel does reduce flood risks.

“The studies we rely on conclude that over time removal does reduce flood risk,” he said.

But Rosenau, a former government biologist, disagreed.

“Based on the information we’ve got, all we’re seeing is that many, if not all, of these projects have no flood protection or erosion benefits and the province has failed to meet its obligation to the fish under its mandate.”

He said a ministry staff person was asked during the meeting about the benefits of the removal at Spring Bar, and Rosenau said the staff technician replied that it would not have been his “preferred” location for removal.

“With the minister sitting right there ... he was saying this isn’t a very good spot,” Rosenau said.

Former fisheries biologist Otto Langer, who was also at the meeting, said the “confrontational” relationship between the ministry and environmentalists has to stop.

“Nothing is being achieved by us scrapping with each other, “ he said. “The better way is to make the process transparent, so the committee and the public can see the science behind removals.”

Chris Gadsden, another committee member at the meeting, said without transparency, “How can you test what these people are saying? How can you believe what they are trying to say?”

Over $600,000 in taxpayers’ money was spent on removals at Big Bar and Spring Bar, yet there was no danger of flooding, according to a study by UBC professor Michael Church, he said.

Penner said several sites are now under consideration by Emergency Management BC for the next round of gravel removals.

rfreeman@theprogress.com

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on October 14, 2008, 03:21:30 PM

Note the statement about how gravel excavation caused the massive fish kill. The government thinks it OK to do this, actually it seems they encourage it.




Salmon could soon vanish like the cod, says author

Published: October 13, 2008 6:00 PM
Updated: October 14, 2008 11:29 AM

The alarming decimation of the West Coast’s iconic Pacific salmon in the past 20 years has largely been a hidden tragedy.

It lurks beneath the waves, unlike more visible environmental catastrophes like shrinking polar ice or B.C.’s reddening stands of beetle-devoured pine trees.

This summer, just 1.7 million Fraser River sockeye returned – a tiny remnant of a resource that once generated 20 million fish a year. The commercial fishing industry is now worth just $60 million, down 70 per cent.

West Vancouver author Alex Rose, whose new book “Who Killed the Grand Banks?” examines the failed Newfoundland fishery, warns Pacific salmon could meet the same fate as the once-legendary cod.

“We’re at crisis,” Rose said in an interview. “I’m not a doomsayer. I’m not an apocalyptic thinker. But we have to rethink what we’re doing.”

Newfoundlanders pointed fingers of blame in all directions when the cod were in freefall.

And Rose, whose book also explores the plight of B.C. salmon, said it’s no different here on the West Coast.

“Every year, there’s another rationale or excuse for what’s happened,” he said.

Ocean survival, rising water temperatures and poaching are favourite scapegoats when salmon go missing.

But Rose said the primary cause is more obvious.

“We’re all overfishing – all of the user groups,” he said. “We’ve got to stop.”

He urges an immediate fishing moratorium by all users on Strait of Georgia wild coho and chinook – the two species he says are most threatened.

After overfishing, he lists habitat destruction as the next likeliest cause of the collapse.

While logging is one major factor, Rose also lists damage to urban streams from development, industrial pollution and volatile new cycles of flood and drought triggered by climate change.

A massive gravel mining operation near Chilliwack that destroyed 2.2 million pink salmon hatchlings in 2006 was the latest high-profile atrocity, he said.

Upriver, salmon face increased competition for water with ranchers, farmers and local cities.

Rose’s most stinging critique is reserved for federal fishery managers, who he accuses of presiding over botched science, muddled management and questionable priorities.

“They have a confused mandate, they are intellectually bankrupt and we can’t count on them any more,” Rose said.

Rather than decisively lead the way to a sustainable solution, he said, DFO managers are left to ineffectually referee the open warfare between commercial fishermen, sport anglers and aboriginal bands.

“One can only conclude that they have failed,” he said. “They are prepared to sacrifice, with the political decisions they’re making now, the very sustainability of these stocks.”

Federal fisheries deputy minister David Bevan told Rose west coast fisheries are shut down when necessary to preserve salmon, and that there’s much greater awareness now of the importance of ocean conditions on salmon survival rates.

Rose is not encouraged.

Despite advance forecasts this would be a low return year for sockeye, fisheries managers gave the green light to commercial and sport fishing for limited periods, and a constricted aboriginal food fishery.

Rose said the picture is even worse for coho and chinook.

“We’re witnessing terrible destruction of these stocks,” he said. “It’s a tragedy.”

Canada already deserves shame for its central role in demolishing a global treasure – the Grand Banks cod.

Rose said it is unthinkable for the country to duplicate that ecological disaster on this coast.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on October 14, 2008, 03:33:37 PM
Note coment made below by a online reader.


Chilliwack Progress
No ‘muzzling’ by Penner: Fraser Valley mayors

By Robert Freeman - Chilliwack Progress

Published: October 13, 2008 6:00 PM
Updated: October 14, 2008 11:28 AM BC Environment Minister Barry Penner was responding to Fraser Valley mayors’ call for flood protection when he wrote a letter in 2003 about two ministry employees allegedly blocking the government’s gravel removal policy in the Fraser River.

“We had concerns they were not following government policy,” former Kent Mayor Sylvia Pranger confirmed Friday.

Penner claimed he was acting on behalf of two Fraser Valley mayors when he wrote the letter, which the NDP charged was an attempt to “muzzle” ministry scientists.

Chilliwack Mayor Clint Hames said the mayors asked Penner to confirm it was the policy of the water, land, and air protection ministry to remove gravel from the Fraser for flood protection because none was happening.

“We asked Mr. Penner, (MLA John) Les, (MLA John) van Dongen and (MLA Randy) Hawes for help on several occasions,” Hames said. “We believed that we had met every hurdle and still no approvals were forthcoming.”

In the letter, written before he became the environment minister, Penner said if the policy was confirmed, it would be “worthwhile” for the deputy minister “to remind your ministry’s employees of this policy.”

The NDP is asking Auditor General John Doyle to review the conduct of Penner, Hawes, Les and Premier Gordon Campbell for alleged “interference” in the discipline and removal of Dr. Marvin Rosenau and other ministry staff.

Pranger said she doesn’t see any attempt at “muzzling’ in Penner’s letter, as charged by the NDP.

“There wasn’t any ‘muzzling’ there,” she said. “He’s asking the ministry for clarification on their policy.”

But NDP environment critic Shane Simpson said there’s a difference between acting on behalf of constituents and “writing a letter to the deputy minister and saying, ‘your staff are raising issues and concerns that are not consistent with the government, so shut them up.’”

Penner said in an earlier interview that he was not aware of any disciplinary action taken against the two employees.

Rosenau, who resigned from the ministry in 2004, could not be reached for comment by press time Friday. But earlier in the week he told reporters that he had been pushed out of the ministry because some MLAs were unhappy with his reports as a fisheries biologist.

Simpson said the Penner letter was the “third layer of what seemed like too much of a familiar thread” uncovered by the NDP that suggested possible political interference in environmental assessments.

“Government scientists ... work for the public interest,” Simpson said. “They’re not supposed to be there to work for one side or the other.”

“As minister, (Penner’s) first job is to ensure the integrity of the process,” he added, “to ensure the independence of the science.”

Both sides claim they have studies that back up their position on gravel removal.

Rosenau and other members of an ad hoc committee of environmental groups seeking a more “transparent” approval process met with Penner last week, but apparently with little success.

Hames said at the time the letter was written, Fraser Valley mayors felt Rosenau and other ministry employees had “clearly lost objectivity” and the “line between advocate and scientist had become very blurry.”

That belief was backed up when a provincial court judge, hearing a 2004 case in which habitat damage was alleged during a gravel removal operation, described Rosenau and other Crown witnesses as exhibiting “signs of being advocates rather than dispassionate, disinterested experts and this adversely affected the weight that I was able to attach to their respective evidence.”

The judge dismissed the charge.

Simpson chided the mayor for using the judge’s four-year-old comments to cast doubt on Rosenau’s credibility now as a scientist.

“That’s an unfortunate position for an elected politician to take,” he said.

rfreeman@theprogress.com


1 Comment
Now we know why Barry Penner ended up in the Minister of Environment chair - he had the right stuff for the BC Liberal's. Way to sell out, Barry!

I like the way the Progress had to post a new story, their buddies told them the last one didn't dump on Marvin Rosenau quite enough. But thanks for bringing up the 2004 fish - that was followed by the huge 2006 kill. 1.5 million to 2.5 million fish caused by gravel mining that Barry's Ministry did nothing about. Well he showed he was willing to sell out.

All fishermen - vote this man OUT OF OFFICE now. We don't need someone like him looking after our sockeye and our sturgeon, if we want to still be fishing three years from now.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on October 20, 2008, 05:34:17 AM
Chilliwack Progress
Rosenau defends ‘advocacy’ role of ministry

By Robert Freeman - Chilliwack Progress

Published: October 16, 2008 6:00 PM
Updated: October 16, 2008 6:30 PM His scientific objectivity called into question, Dr. Marvin Rosenau refused to back down from his “advocacy” of the environment over gravel removal operations in the Fraser River when he was a government fisheries biologist.

“Would the provincial government not want ministry staff to be advocates for the environment?” he asked, after his objectivity was questioned by two Fraser Valley mayors commenting on his actions as a government fisheries biologist before he resigned in 2004.

Chilliwack Mayor Clint Hames and Kent Mayor Sylvia Pranger both raised a provincial court judge’s comment on Rosenau’s testimony in a 2004 gravel removal case to back up their belief that two ministry employees were blocking the new B.C. Liberal government’s policy of removing gravel in the Fraser River for flood protection.

Their concern about the employees led to a 2003 letter written by Chilliwack-Kent MLA Barry Penner, which the NDP now charges was an attempt to “muzzle” ministry scientists. Penner denies the charge, saying he was only acting as the area MLA on behalf of the mayors.

In the judge’s written reasons, Rosenau and other Crown witnesses are described as showing “signs of being advocates rather than dispassionate, disinterested experts,” which played a part in the dismissal of the charge against the Cheam Indian Band.

Now an instructor at BCIT, Rosenau told The Progress last week he doesn’t know if he was one of the employees referred to in the letter.

Several ministry staff were working on the file, he said, but “I was probably asking the harshest questions” about the proposed removals and whether they had flood protection benefits, and what mitigation and compensation for habitat damage was in place, as required by the law.

“These hardcore questions were not being answered,” he said. “Did my actions block gravel removals? If the science blocks it, then so be it.”

He said several academics also agreed with his position, and a later study commissioned by the federal government in 2007 showed that “large-scale” gravel removals did not appear to “effectively” lower the risking of flooding.

But Mayor Pranger said last week that there is a “mountain” of other studies that show gravel removal is not harmful to fish habitat, and in fact can be beneficial.

Rosenau and others in an ad hoc committee of environmental groups are asking Penner, now the B.C. environment minister, to open up the approval process for public review.

rfreeman@theprogress.com
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on January 14, 2009, 06:42:26 PM

Received this today.


INFORMATION BULLETIN
For Immediate Release
2009PSSG0005-000044
Jan. 14, 2009

Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General

SEDIMENT AND GRAVEL REMOVAL WILL REDUCE FLOOD RISK

VICTORIA - As part of the Province's ongoing efforts to protect public
safety by reducing the risk of flooding in the Fraser Valley,
contractors will remove sediment and gravel on the Fraser River.

Between Jan. 15 and March 15, 2009, crews with contractor Lehigh
Aggregates will extract about 155,000 cubic metres of sediment and
gravel from Harrison Bar near Chilliwack. To minimize environmental
impact, a temporary bridge will be put in place to allow crews and
equipment to access the bar.

All work on this project must meet strict environmental guidelines to
ensure fish habitat is protected. The federal Department of Fisheries
and Oceans has approved the project, and the Province is working to
ensure that sediment and gravel extraction is done based on a sound
scientific approach - one that protects this sensitive environment
while balancing the need to protect public safety.

The Province is spending approximately $263,000 for the temporary
bridge and biological and hydraulic studies at the site before, during
and after sediment and gravel removal. An independent environmental
monitor will be onsite throughout the project to ensure environmental
protection measures are in place. The independent monitor will have the
authority to stop work if any environmental concerns arise.



Media contact:

Glen Plummer
Communications Manager
Emergency Management B.C.
250 953-4062
250 213-5667 (cell)
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on January 14, 2009, 10:00:25 PM
Without any hangups, it would take at least a year in Washington for any environmental permits for this type of work to be obtained.  How stupid do these people think we are?  I'm seriously getting to the point where I am giving up on BC and planning my future trips to Alaska.  This kind of rape and pillage of the environment has and will have severe impacts to the beautiful Canadian environment.   I am praying that someone drops a billion dollar law suit on the BC government and seeks an emergency injunction to stop this nonsense.  IMO, that's the only way to wake those arrogant @$$#0!3s up. 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on January 14, 2009, 10:06:29 PM
BTW, any bets that they'll drive pile for the bridge work, not have any hydroaccoustical monitoring requirements, not use vegetable oil for hydraulic fluid, not re-fuel vehicles/machinery at least .25 miles from the riparian, not have diapers on all heavy equipment to keep petroleum out of sensitive areas, not have silt fence in place, not have fish screens on pumps, not isolate work areas for all fish, not monitor downstream water quality, not re-vegetate the riparian area, etc., etc.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: BwiBwi on January 14, 2009, 10:18:18 PM
On top of that, they have to do it on a odd year when pinks are running.   :'( >:(
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: work2fish on January 14, 2009, 10:26:19 PM
BTW, any bets that they'll drive pile for the bridge work, not have any hydroaccoustical monitoring requirements, not use vegetable oil for hydraulic fluid, not re-fuel vehicles/machinery at least .25 miles from the riparian, not have diapers on all heavy equipment to keep petroleum out of sensitive areas, not have silt fence in place, not have fish screens on pumps, not isolate work areas for all fish, not monitor downstream water quality, not re-vegetate the riparian area, etc., etc.

Anyone know who the independant monitor is?  Might be worth posting, that way if anyone happens to be out there and sees anything they think shouldn't be going on, take a few pictures and forward to the monitor of the program, with a cc to the local papers and the MoE.  About the only way this would ever get stopped is if someone can prove, or at least get the media to hint, that they are doing something wrong, especially with an election around the corner provincially (and possibly federally if they mess up on the 27th).
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on January 15, 2009, 10:08:33 AM


CBC radio news item.


Fraser River gravel extraction to reduce flood threat: official
Last Updated: Thursday, January 15, 2009 | 9:17 AM PT Comments0Recommend3CBC News
A long-term plan to reduce flooding in the Fraser Valley east of Vancouver is expected to begin Thursday with the excavation of a huge gravel bar in the Fraser River.

A crew of 25 will truck away the equivalent of more than 50 Olympic-sized swimming pools of gravel and sediment over the next two months from the site near Chilliwack.

The 10-year, $100-million plan involves building and maintaining existing dikes, and preventing the erosion of riverbanks across B.C., according to Glen Thompson, a flood program specialist with the emergency-planning department of the Ministry of Public Safety.

But starting the gravel extraction sooner would not have had any effect on the recent flooding in Chilliwack because the water in that case came from a different area, Thompson said.

About 75 Fraser Valley homes were flooded when recent heavy rains melted a large amount of accumulated snow, flooding local waterways and spilling over into low lying communities near the Fraser River.

It is still unclear what effect removing the gravel will have on water levels, because gravel and sediment naturally wash up and collect in the area known as Harrison Bar, Thompson said.

Historically, the debris would disperse naturally, but urban development and the construction of dikes on the Fraser, which have narrowed the river at many points, have stopped that process.

Gravel extraction on the Fraser has been controversial because of concerns from fisheries experts about the impact it might have on salmon that use the gravel beds for spawning.

The extracted gravel will be used for construction, Thompson said.

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Geff_t on January 15, 2009, 11:12:13 AM
What I would like to know is what effect this all has on the sturgeon population up there. Do they also know where sturgeon spawn.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on January 15, 2009, 11:31:15 AM
What I would like to know is what effect this all has on the sturgeon population up there. Do they also know where sturgeon spawn.
From what I have been told by our technical people some of the gravel excavations sites have impacted sturgeon spawning areas.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: troutbreath on January 15, 2009, 01:02:51 PM
"It is still unclear what effect removing the gravel will have on water levels, because gravel and sediment naturally wash up and collect in the area known as Harrison Bar, Thompson said."


But they still spend $263,000 on subsidizing gravel. For construction of probably the "Olympic Village". No money for fish habitat, the opposite in fact.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Iris on January 15, 2009, 02:29:23 PM
Interesting. That explains the survey work I was told about in that area that took place last October. I was told it was to be gravel mined but I didn't believe it since there had not been even a whiff of consultation. Will they dig to divert flow from mouth of Minto Channel, thereby allowing to fill and take pressure off dike? I wouldn't put it past them.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Morty on January 15, 2009, 07:22:14 PM
Sure would be nice if a percentage of the gravel revenue went into support for the fish stocks.
Even if it was a similar amount to the governments supervision and environmental budget for the project.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on January 16, 2009, 10:47:02 AM

Today's Chilliwack Progress
Gravel dig starts at Harrison Bar

By Robert Freeman - Chilliwack Progress

Published: January 15, 2009 6:00 PM

0 Comments Another gravel dig that started yesterday in the Fraser River is again stirring up environmental concerns for fish habitat.

But officials at Emergency Management BC in the public safety ministry said the way the gravel is removed from Harrison Bar will actually “enhance” fish habitat, “maintain” the river’s flood profile and lower it over time.

“It’s a good flood protection project,” Glen Thompson, EMBC’s director of strategic mitigation programs, said yesterday.

He said the project is part of an ongoing strategy of gravel removals and dike improvements that will lead to better flood protection over the long term. In the short term, the project will lower the river at the site by .1 metre and improve the flow of the river over the gravel bar.

But Frank Kwak, president of the Fraser Valley Salmon Society that sits on an ad hoc committee opposed to gravel removal in the Fraser River, said the project “has very little to do with flood protection.”

“If they want to do something about flood protection, why don’t they raise the dikes,” he said. “Why do they keep buffaloing the people that it’s for flood protection. That’s just not the case.”

He pointed to an earlier study that concluded millions of cubic metres of gravel would have to be removed at one time to reduce the river’s level by an inch. About 155,000 cubic metres of gravel and sediment were approved for removal from Harrison Bar following a review of the environmental impact by federal fisheries.

The report found the project would have a “negligible” impact on fish habitat and is “not likely to result in significant adverse environmental effects.”

The report also stated any damages to habitat caused by the removal would be repaired by the river itself as new gravel and sediments arrive in the next freshet.

Kwak said even if that is true, it doesn’t take into account the fish that are “holding on to those gravel bars right now.”

Fisheries biologist Marvin Rosenau said he is concerned the Harrison project will disturb spawning habitat for the fragile white sturgeon population and lead to its collapse.

Fraser River Sturgeon Conservation Society officials could not be reached for comment at press time. The report stated the impact on sturgeon is expected to be “negligible.”

The B.C. government is spending $263,000 to build a temporary bridge so contractor Lehigh Aggregates can reach the site.

An independent environmental monitor on site will have the authority to stop the work if environmental concerns arise.

rfreeman@theprogress.com
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: troutbreath on January 16, 2009, 01:15:21 PM
Reducing flood threat
 
Paul J. Henderson
The Times


Thursday, January 15, 2009


After two consecutive years of flood threat and a real flood in Chilliwack only receding now, the provincial government announced another round of Fraser River gravel removal over the next three months.

Between Jan. 15 and March 15 Lehigh Aggregates will extract about 155,000 cubic metres of sediment and gravel from Harrison Bar near Chilliwack, according to a press release issued Wednesday.

The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has approved the project and the province reports the extraction will be done based on a scientific approach-"one that protects this sensitive environment while balancing the need to protect public safety."

While provincially-funded gravel removal operations in the past have had the support of the City of Chilliwack and the Seabird Island band, sports fishers and other activists have criticized the operations as a waste of time as a means to prevent flooding and as nothing but a "gravel grab" for the construction industry that wants the aggregate.

Despite DFO's approval, sports fishers say that the gravel removal on the Fraser River near Spring Bar last year damages salmon spawning grounds.

Dr. Marvin Rosenau, a former provincial government fisheries scientist, said in response to last year's 400,000 cubic metre gravel removal that the project's supporters couldn't get their stories straight.

"While the project was being touted by the Provincial Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General as having flood-protection benefits, the proponent kept insisting that the project was to reduce erosion, even though the stream bank at this location is well-protected and armoured, and it hadn't moved or eroded significantly in 50 years," he said.

But Environment Minister Barry Penner said that his government campaigned on gravel removal in 2001 and 2005 and that it was a popular promise.

While the province sent out the press release stating this was an effort to reduce "the risk of flooding in the Fraser Valley," the current flood waters receding in Chilliwack have nothing to do with the Fraser River, but were weather related.

The government will spend approximately $263,000 for a temporary bridge to access the gravel and biological and hydraulic studies at the site before, during and after the removal.

The province say that an independent environmental protection monitor will be on site and will have the authority to stop work if any concerns arise.

phenderson@chilliwacktimes.com




© Chilliwack Times 2009
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: river_house on February 03, 2009, 10:01:28 AM
I have been reading the discussion with regard to the dredging of the Fraser River down here on Ballam Road.

I have a front row seat here of the excavating and I will check back to this site to see updates/news as it happens.



Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on February 03, 2009, 05:42:25 PM
please post pictures if you will.  Also, is there any mitigation toward the fisheries folks for this project.  IMO, the govt. should be contributing a large sum of $$ to everyone who will be negatively impacted from the lost resources.  Also, by spending public $$ to mine the public's resources, the government should be liable for the failure of their project.  I.e., when the next flood occurs, they should be personally responsible for property damage.  We'll then see exactly how sure they are that gravel mining reduces flooding. 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on February 03, 2009, 05:44:58 PM
Oh, one more thing.  I have heard through the grapevine that local fishing outfitters and clubs have been paying attention to the trends up there.  Word has it, they are advising people to look elsewhere to go on vacation to fish.  Looks like Alaska stands to benefit. 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on February 03, 2009, 09:06:20 PM
I must get out for some pictures as I know the work is underway.

The Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee is working hard on this file trying to get information from the two levels of our senior governments. Even though some say all the proper studies have been done we are having a terrible time trying to get them. We have been forced to go through FOI route to try and obtain them. They keep saying it is for flood protection but as I have said from the start in my opinion you will never take enough gravel out of this huge and wide Fraser River here in the Valley to make a difference. This is all about the need for the gravel for so many different construction projects

Also there is concerns this present project on the Harrison Bar is a spawning area for the white sturgeon during the freshet.

Let me tell you the amount of research work that the committee has done and all the letters that have gone out and are going out is amazing.

Many weeks ago at the meeting we had with the Environment Minister in Vancouver and some of his staff we asked  for some answers to 5 questions but to date no answer. This comes from a government that said they would be a transparent government. ??? ::)

As one that worked for this party on a local Riding Association it is very disappointing to see this from them.

The way they are going with, run of the river projects, fish farms and all I know how they have handled this gravel file the last 2 years I know we need to replace them come May. I believe they think they can get away with what they are doing as they know we that care about our fish and their environment are a minority but they certainly will not be getting the votes they got in the past by a lot of us.

PS

We are working on a public meeting on this so hopefully some of you will support us and attend when and if we have it organized.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on February 03, 2009, 11:09:53 PM
Chris, forgive my ignorance, but are lawsuits out of the question in BC?  I'm not necessarily talking about a monetary settlement, what I mean is an injuction to force work to halt until all questions have been answered.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: river_house on February 04, 2009, 10:03:31 AM
The project got a very late start today, by at least 2 hours.

The flag girl was in place just after 6:30 am.

We were wondering what the issue was..

I counted 17 gravel trucks that all left the RMW site at about 9:38 am heading to the sandbar.

First load just came through at 10:03.

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: river_house on February 06, 2009, 12:04:30 PM
I took a clip this morning of a near accident on Ballam Road, and posted it on Youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3h2xlYmmlI

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on February 06, 2009, 12:32:51 PM
I took a clip this morning of a near accident on Ballam Road, and posted it on Youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3h2xlYmmlI


Thanks for posting. If you have some time could you film some of the gravel operation out there including the bridge etc., that would be great for others to see. Thanks so much.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: river_house on February 06, 2009, 12:45:10 PM
The last gravel truck came through at 7:43pm last night.

They had already opened the road, which was odd because the last truck was not through yet.

I feel like I can't get down to the sandbar until sunday, the ONLY day of rest for Ballam Road.

The flag girl turns on the generator and lights and closes the road around 630 am.

The window of opportunity is veryyy small to get a chance to be down there.

I have seen the media and residents on bikes with safety vests TRY to get down there only to be stopped by the flag girl.

Sunday I am going to get down there and take some footage.

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: river_house on February 06, 2009, 12:47:08 PM
John Les: an interesting video..

http://www.gov.chilliwack.bc.ca/main/page.cfm?id=1551



Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Rodney on February 06, 2009, 01:06:11 PM
Post these photos for Chris.

(http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/forum/090206-01.jpg)

(http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/forum/090206-02.jpg)
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: river_house on February 17, 2009, 07:53:55 AM
A gravel truck rolled on the corner of Ballam and McDonald on Monday morning.

The road is so damaged with cracks and holes from the project, and trucks haven't slowed down, despite our calls and emails to the Municipality and the project manager.

They had a safety meeting after the truck flipped, and Im told they will go slower now, but I haven't seen that.

Another load came close to tipping late yesterday afternoon, it teetered.

Two municipal representatives came to observe the project as I requested.

They hired a water truck and sweeper to clean the road off a bit.

Just a LOT of fun down here at the river.

Can't wait for this project to END.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: river_house on February 17, 2009, 10:35:36 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfYAVB9c_OQ

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on February 17, 2009, 10:59:40 AM
Thanks for keeping us updated. I was just told another project is just starting, in the vicinity of the Popkum side channel that enters the Fraser River just above the Agassiz to Rosedale Bridge.

The assault on fish habitat continues on unabated. >:(
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: river_house on February 17, 2009, 05:26:22 PM
Gordon Campbell is getting as much money as he can, while he can.

I won't be voting for Liberals in May!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5tWTztuh80

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: troutbreath on February 18, 2009, 09:40:30 AM
Great soundtrack with those trucks going by. Better than Rod's sleezy disco track. I won't be voting Liberal neither.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: armytruck on February 19, 2009, 12:32:36 PM
I still thing they should extract gravel out the stretch above the Chehailis Hatchery and get the run back to where it belongs .
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Morty on February 19, 2009, 11:10:51 PM
any newer pictures?

how can I get near there to see what they're doing?
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: river_house on February 20, 2009, 08:04:13 AM
With the Ballam Road project, the only day you can access it..is on a sunday.
Even then they have security and you can't drive down but you can walk in, through knee deep mud.
Last sunday I saw several people dressed for it, walking in.
Or if you have a boat someone could get close to the site that way.

Two gravel trucks have rolled so far.

Most of the loads now seem to be more dirt than gravel since thursday.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Rodney on February 20, 2009, 11:38:16 AM
Posting for Chris.

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/2009-fraser-gravel-extraction/090220_1.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/2009-fraser-gravel-extraction/090220_2.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/2009-fraser-gravel-extraction/090220_3.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/2009-fraser-gravel-extraction/090220_4.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/2009-fraser-gravel-extraction/090220_5.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/2009-fraser-gravel-extraction/090220_6.jpg)

(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/2009-fraser-gravel-extraction/090220_7.jpg)
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on February 20, 2009, 04:18:55 PM
The story on the photo's above that were taken at Tranmer Bar this week.


Gravel removal employs 20
Paul J. Henderson, The Times
Published: Friday, February 20, 2009
The provincial government has begun another round of controversial gravel removal on the Fraser River.

Chilliwack-based Jake's Construction has the contract to install a temporary bridge to get access to 186,000 cubic metres of gravel from the Tranmer Bar, an area of approximately four square kilometres on the north bank of the Fraser River, approximately five kilometres upstream from the Agassiz-Rosedale Bridge, according to a press release.

The release states the work is part of the "ongoing efforts to protect public safety and reduce the risk of flooding in the Fraser Valley by removing some of the sediment and gravel that continues to build up in this part of the Fraser River."


Each year, the equivalent of between 15,000 and 63,000 dump-truck loads of sediment and gravel washes down the river and comes to rest between Hope and Mission, according to the provincial government.

This latest contract comes on the heels of a January announcement that ongoing until March 15, Lehigh Aggregates will extract about 155,000 cubic metres of sediment and gravel from Harrison Bar near Chilliwack.

Fishermen from the Cheam band confirm that fishing spots used for years are increasingly filled with gravel, and the Seabird Island band has lost hundreds of acres to erosion because of rising river levels.

However, some activists and sports fishers have complained that the gravel removal effects salmon spawning grounds. Other opponents say the project is nothing but a gravel grab for the development industry that wants the aggregate.

The project will employ up to 20 people and is expected to be completed by March 15.

The release states that all work at the site must meet strict environmental guidelines to ensure fish habitat is protected. The government will spend approximately $225,000 for biological and hydraulic studies at the site before, during and after sediment and gravel removal.


Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on February 20, 2009, 05:05:59 PM
"Strict environmental guidelines", my @$$.  I have yet to see any picture of hi vis fence or silt fence.  The most basic of BMP's.  I seriously doubt there's any in place.  Also, if it's not about the gravel, ask them what they're doing with it. 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on February 20, 2009, 05:19:49 PM
At the montly Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee meeting today the decision was made to go with a public information meeting here in Chilliwack on March 19. More details to follow and we hope many of you will attend and bring a friend with you.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: river_house on February 20, 2009, 07:12:33 PM
A Status Report for the Supply of Aggregates in British Columbia - 20 Feb 2009
 by Barry Irvine, Construction Aggregates Ltd., Vancouver, British Columbia

 

This extended abstract is reproduced from:

Bobrowsky, P.T., Massey, N.W.D. and Matysek, P.F. (1996): Aggregate Forum: Developing an Inventory that Works for You!, Report of Proceedings; B.C. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Information Circular 1996-6.

 

The supply of aggregates is key to the future growth of British Columbia. Aggregate is used in roads, asphalt, concrete, rail ballast, concrete products such as concrete pipe, block, pavers, manholes, etc. and as fill and backfill. Growth and improvement of the existing infrastructure are dependent on a low cost, reliable supply of quality aggregate. Although, the following comments are made with reference to the Lower Mainland construction market, they apply in varying degree to the rest of the province.

 

Construction in the Lower Mainland requires 20 to 24 million tonnes of aggregate per year with some estimates as high as 30 million tonnes. This figure includes fill and backfill not normally included in the definition of aggregate but originating from similar sources. Aggregate comes from the following general locations:

Coastal pits on tidewater - 8 million tonnes per year
 
North side of the Fraser River - 4 million tonnes per year
 
Matsqui/Abbotsford and Chilliwack - 4 million tonnes per year
 
Fraser River - 4 million tonnes per year (including 3 million tonnes of dredged sand)
 
Quarries on Texada - 1 million tonnes per year
 
Imports from the US - 1 million tonnes per year
 

*snipped for space

The ideas and recommendations presented in this abstract are the views of the individual author and do not necessarily represent the official policies of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.


http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/Geoscience/SurficialGeologyandHazards/AggregateProject/AggregateForum95/Pages/StatusReportfortheSupplyofAggregatesinBC.aspx

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on February 27, 2009, 10:38:23 AM
Chilliwack Progress
Public forum on gravel mining
 
 
I certainly hope many of you will attend this meeting. It starts at 6:30 PM on March 19. Thanks Chris

   By Robert Freeman - Chilliwack Progress


Published: February 26, 2009 6:00 PM

 Critics of gravel mining in the Fraser River are taking their case for a more open approval process to the court of public opinion.

A public meeting is being held March 19 at the Chilliwack Best Western organized by a coalition of environmental groups called the Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee.

The idea of holding a public forum on the gravel issue began in April last year after the outcry over a run-of-the-river project on the Pitt River caused the B.C. environment ministry to cancel the plan.

But Patti MacAhonic, B.C. Wildlife Federation executive director, said the purpose of this meeting is to present “balanced” information to the public about gravel removal “so people can make up their own minds.”

An open mike will be available after the presentation for the public to ask questions or express their own views.

Federal and provincial officials, including Chilliwack MLAs John Les and Barry Penner, have been invited to the meeting, along with First Nations leaders.

The B.C. government and federal fisheries insist the removals are for flood protection, and approved only after comprehensive environmental studies are conducted and safeguards are in place.

The committee insists it is not opposed to gravel mining, but wants the flood benefits proved before putting fish habitat at risk.

“We want to make sure DFO and the province follow the stated policies to ensure fish habitat is protected - and we don’t feel they are,” MacAhonic said.

A “transparent” process, including data from environmental studies done before and after removals, is part of the government policies, but committee members claim they are being stymied in their efforts to obtain information.

Marvin Rosenau, a former government biologist and outspoken critic of the approval process, said the public is routinely left out of removal decisions by federal and provincial officials “without any clear explanation.”

Freedom of Information requests by the committee, when approved at all, are also returned with “even simple technical stuff excised for no reason,” he said.

Frank Kwak, Fraser Valley Salmon Society president, said the committee invited government officials to the meeting “to give them the opportunity to hear what we have to say, and take it back to their people or respond” at the meeting.

MacAhonic said the wildlife federation is well-known as a “responsible” organization that doesn’t get involved with fringe elements of the environmental community.

“We have some real concerns about fish habitat with the gravel removal (process),” she said.

There is “adequate” protection already in government policies, she added, “but they need to be followed. There needs to be a transparent process.”

rfreeman@theprogress.com

COMMENTS
COMMENTING ETIQUETTE: To encourage open exchange of ideas in the BCLocalNews.com community, we ask that you follow our guidelines and respect standards. Simply, don't say anything you wouldn't want your mother to read. More on etiquette...


Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: river_house on February 27, 2009, 01:43:09 PM
Thanks for the info, Im marking the date on my calendar.

The project here on Ballam Road has finally come to an end, thank god.

I thought they stopped because of the snow but my husband spoke to the flaggers and he was told that they are 'done', and that they got more than they expected.

Its been HELL on this road, HELL, and Im not kidding, we had no idea that it would be like a warzone with speeding gravel trucks from before sunrise to well beyond sunset.
Our house SHOOK, it was HELL.

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on February 27, 2009, 03:25:48 PM
3 of us from The Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee went out there at noon along with a Chilliwack Progress reporter and as river house reported the project was wrapping up. We were able to drive right to the bridge but the trucks have sure made a mess of the road as RH has been reporting.

We were met by a security person who asked us to leave but we asked to meet with an environmental monitor who we believed was suppose to be on site all the time. The security person as I understood it did not know if one was around but went to find out. When she returned she asked us to leave the area and to phone someone from the gravel company about the monitor. We said we would leave but we talked with the reporter for a bit and took some pictures.

I guess we took to long as I believe the security officer called someone and she came back to us and said to leave right now or she would have to phone the RCMP.  I felt like saying go ahead but as I want to go fishing this afternoon instead of spending some time at the station maybe being booked so we left.

I am sure when they saw me with my Maple Leaf hat and shirt on I could have got some jail time.  ;D Anyway we left and it gave the reporter another story to write but a photo of me being handcuffed may have looked good when all we are trying to do is protect our fish and their habitat.

Pictures of the gravel they have taken out and the bridge crossing when Rodney can post as I am going fishing now, its a lovely day in the Valley in some ways. :-\
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Rantalot on February 28, 2009, 10:04:03 AM
(http://gallery.fishbc.com/albums/album611/And_ten_minutes_later.sized.jpg)

(http://gallery.fishbc.com/albums/album611/dolly.sized.jpg)

(http://gallery.fishbc.com/albums/album611/chris_scutty.jpg)

This sucks I have had some good days fishing Tranmers  >:(
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: river_house on February 28, 2009, 04:59:23 PM
3 of us from The Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee went out there at noon along with a Chilliwack Progress reporter and as river house reported the project was wrapping up. We were able to drive right to the bridge but the trucks have sure made a mess of the road as RH has been reporting.

We were met by a security person who asked us to leave but we asked to meet with an environmental monitor who we believed was suppose to be on site all the time. The security person as I understood it did not know if one was around but went to find out. When she returned she asked us to leave the area and to phone someone from the gravel company about the monitor. We said we would leave but we talked with the reporter for a bit and took some pictures.

I guess we took to long as I believe the security officer called someone and she came back to us and said to leave right now or she would have to phone the RCMP.  I felt like saying go ahead but as I want to go fishing this afternoon instead of spending some time at the station maybe being booked so we left.

I am sure when they saw me with my Maple Leaf hat and shirt on I could have got some jail time.  ;D Anyway we left and it gave the reporter another story to write but a photo of me being handcuffed may have looked good when all we are trying to do is protect our fish and their habitat.

Pictures of the gravel they have taken out and the bridge crossing when Rodney can post as I am going fishing now, its a lovely day in the Valley in some ways. :-\

I enjoyed reading this post with what happened when you went down to the bridge to take some pictures and speak to them about the project.
Its incredible that you were threatened with them calling the Police, after all you are honest citizens concerned for the environment.
Honestly it reeks of another BC Government project that I recently witnessed in Tsawwassen with the High Voltage power lines being placed over 138 homes and the only High School, where concerned residents, parents, students and teachers who protested were threatened with Police action and in fact a few were arrested for civil contempt.
But thats just another story by Gordon Campbell.

Oh, and..GO LEAFS GO!

RH
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: bentrod on February 28, 2009, 05:05:46 PM
Why doesn't someone access the site from the water?  I'd do that, take some pics, and then send them to someone from outside BC.  There are plenty of extreme environment groups in Washington State that would gladly go up there to make some noise.  It could then turn into an international fiasco. 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: river_house on February 28, 2009, 05:24:10 PM
I think you can get down to the bridge here now that the project is over.
Then again the security guy may still be at his post because think the bridge is being dismantled.
Those big cement blocks are being taken out today.

Someone should be on this environmental officer and make sure that they have left the river in good condition.
ie: diesel, oil etc.

The municiplaity should have a hand in for independent testing, as they did in tsawwassen when residents suspected contaminents were left at sites by BC Hydro.
They were right and Hydro was forced to clean it up, based on the conditions of the Environmental ticket or be faced with a hefty fine.

They SURE aren't in a hurry to fix the broken road, so far.

My point is one word.

Accountablity.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Iris on March 01, 2009, 01:24:10 PM
What's with security still at the site if they are finished with the gravel removal ? Ballam road is sure a mess.
Anyone have pictures to post of the extraction over at McDonald road? Access was made more difficult some time ago. Coincidence?
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Mike D. on March 02, 2009, 02:42:04 PM
What's with security still at the site if they are finished with the gravel removal ? Ballam road is sure a mess.
Anyone have pictures to post of the extraction over at McDonald road? Access was made more difficult some time ago. Coincidence?

Nope not a coincidence, the owner of the property around tranmers was quite annoyed with all the rubbish and bs going on there so he decided to chop some trees and close er down.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on March 02, 2009, 03:57:57 PM
What's with security still at the site if they are finished with the gravel removal ? Ballam road is sure a mess.
Anyone have pictures to post of the extraction over at McDonald road? Access was made more difficult some time ago. Coincidence?

Nope not a coincidence, the owner of the property around tranmers was quite annoyed with all the rubbish and bs going on there so he decided to chop some trees and close er down.
I wish he would have kept the gravel operations out too as they wiill be doing a lot of damage too.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Mike D. on March 02, 2009, 07:18:53 PM
ya I do not know the down low on that one chris, but I think the power of the government out numbers the power of one land owner....
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on March 02, 2009, 07:59:28 PM
ya I do not know the down low on that one chris, but I think the power of the government out numbers the power of one land owner....
I hope you will be able to come to the public meeting on the 19th so our scientific people can explain what we feel is the damage that is being caused to our fish and sturgeon stocks.

I have felt for a long time and I say it most likely too many times, the Fraser River is way way too big a water course to every take enough gravel out to make a different as far as a flood goes. There also was a consultant report published in a Vancouver Sun story that backed this statement. When you are out on the river just look how big and wide it is.

It has been the talk of a few that have convinced a lot of the general public that gravel removal will pervent a flood but I have yet to see the proof of that to date. 

I still think it is the demand for gravel is what drives all this which I will believe until someone gives me the engineered proof it is indeed for flood protection. In the meantime our fish and their habitat continue to be compromised, in a way I wish I was wrong.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: river_house on March 02, 2009, 08:40:56 PM
Thanks for the updates on the one property owner.

If its like the other Campbell project of high voltage lines in Tsawwassen, then they will get a court order and force the property owner to cooperate.

Is he denying access through his land? Thanks for the updates as you learn it.

Also I appreciate reading the posts with regards to your views on these types of projects and the potential damage to the environment.

We need to protect our natural resources from the BC Government, imo.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on March 02, 2009, 11:35:01 PM
Chilliwack Progress
Gravel critics asked to leave Fraser gravel bar
 
 
Text   By Robert Freeman - Chilliwack Progress


Published: March 02, 2009 6:00 PM

Members of the Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee and a Progress reporter were escorted off the site of a mining operation winding down at the Harrison gravel bar Friday.

The committee members wanted to talk to the environmental monitor, but he was apparently not on site - as required by the removal permit - or chose not to make himself available.

Frank Kwak, president of the Fraser River Salmon Society, said there were no signs or flag persons preventing public access to the site, and the lone security guard had no identification or phone numbers to call company officials or to speak with the monitor.

“When we were ordered off the gravel bar, or she’d call the RCMP, there were no signs, no flagmen, nothing to indicate we weren’t able to be there,” he said.

John Dyck, spokesman for the contractor, said he was unhappy the site was not secured because the company was still liable for public safety, even though the project is winding down.

“I don’t like the fact you were actually able to access the site,” he said. “We’re paying people to prevent that.”

But safety, not secrecy, is the reason behind requiring visits to the site to be pre-arranged, he added.

“We’re not trying to hide anything,” he said, and committee members should have known they needed to call before visiting the site.

Although Dyck agreed the environmental monitor “should have been” at the site, he backed up the actions of security staff because of an earlier incident involving members of the committee.

Kwak agreed some members had perhaps crossed the line earlier by going onto a bridge to a removal site without permission, “but I’m not that radical, not by a long shot.”

He agreed public safety was a “legitimate” reason to restrict access, but there was no work going on at the site Friday, and nothing to prevent anyone from going onto the gravel bar - until a woman with a security jacket but no other identification ordered the group off the property.

The committee, a coalition of environmental groups, has long been at loggerheads with the B.C. government and federal fisheries over the lack of “transparency” in the approval process to remove gravel from the Fraser River.

A public forum is being held March 19 at the Chilliwack Best Western to present the committee’s case for a more open approval process.

rfreeman@theprogress.com

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Riverman on March 03, 2009, 07:02:56 AM
This is just the kind of abuse that makes people question just who is free in our land.I have been watching this rape and pillage routine for some time and it sickens me.If gravel removal could stop flooding why was it not the choice after the last great flood instead of a massive dyking system on the Fraser and all it's tributaries?Seems obvious that this just more of what I call "politicized science".It just wrong on so many levels.Much thanks to Chris for keeping us informed about this.Thanks to Rod as well for providing a place we can educate ourselves about what is going on.Chris is this meeting open to the public? If so I would Like to attend.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Riverman on March 03, 2009, 07:04:59 AM
Ooops I see that it is.See you there!
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on March 03, 2009, 08:57:43 AM
Ooops I see that it is.See you there!
Great, I will send you a poster that you may wish to circulate.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on March 04, 2009, 08:09:49 PM
These are the pictures of the bridge out to Harrison Bar we took before we were asked to leave the site as mentioned in the above article.

The last three are of the gravel piles that was taken off Harrison Bar the last few weeks. It is conveniently piled by a local gravel plant beside the Fraser River.



(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m53/shortfloater/IMG_1435.jpg)

(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m53/shortfloater/IMG_1436.jpg)

(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m53/shortfloater/IMG_1439.jpg)

(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m53/shortfloater/IMG_1440.jpg)

(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m53/shortfloater/IMG_1442.jpg)

(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m53/shortfloater/IMG_1443.jpg)

(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m53/shortfloater/IMG_1444.jpg)
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on March 08, 2009, 06:47:55 PM

First the fish now moles.


Mine threatens mole's existence
 
Proposed gravel pit infringes on habitat of the last 500 of the endangered mammals
 
By Larry Pynn, Vancouver SunMarch 7, 2009
 
A lopsided battle is underway between a ubiquitous industrial giant and a rare pint-sized mammal fighting for its very existence in the populous Lower Mainland.

The entire Canadian habitat of the Townsend's mole -- federally endangered and red-listed by the B.C. Ministry of Environment -- is confined to a narrow agricultural zone near the Canada-U.S. border in the south Abbotsford area.

And that is precisely where Lafarge Canada is seeking to extract gravel from six agricultural properties totalling 39 hectares at Clearbrook and Columbia roads.

The proposal has also generated cross-border concerns about its impact on the aquifer and is headed to Abbotsford council on Monday.

The province estimates 500 moles live within a 13-square-kilometre area of south Abbotsford and is working on a recovery plan for the species that involves adjacent parts of Washington state.

Sylvia Letay, ecosystems officer for the environment ministry, wrote to Abbotsford in January to decry the lack of environmental assessment and warned that Lafarge's excavations would "exterminate any Townsend's moles on site." She added that the ministry has repeatedly informed Abbotsford officials about the "sensitivities" surrounding the endangered mole in that area since 2007.

Kate Thompson, spokeswoman for the environment ministry, said the province's current position is that Lafarge's studies to date are insufficient and urges a "proper survey be undertaken ... utilizing established survey protocols."

Contacted by The Vancouver Sun, Lafarge general manager Ron Bruhaug said he didn't know anything about the issue of the endangered mole and the proposed mining site. "Pardon me, say that again? Okay, I'm not familiar with that. I don't know about the moles."

Mark Haddock of the University of B.C. has been following the case with his environmental law students and says it speaks volumes about the state of environment protection in B.C.

"If we're serious about endangered species protection and aquifer protection there should be some ability for the provincial and federal governments to exercise their authority over issues like this."

The Agricultural Land Commission okayed the project against the recommendation of its own staff, who feared "the loss of highly valued agricultural soils" during the removal of almost five million cubic metres of aggregate over a period of up to 19 years, commission documents show.

The commission approval commits Lafarge to providing a $500,000 letter of credit to ensure reclamation of the site and putting an adjacent 11 hectares already mined into the land reserve.

Environment Minister Barry Penner has the power to order an environmental assessment in the public interest when a project may have "significant adverse environmental, economic, social, heritage or health effect," but has not done so, Haddock said.

A staff engineering report to Abbotsford council recommends the gravel pit be approved, noting the city stands to earn "millions in soil removal fees" although it also notes the additional cost of roads in the area that would need to be improved.

The mole, named after the late American naturalist John Kirk Townsend, is an unlikely poster child for the conservation movement.

It is a primitive mammal little changed in 130 million years. It weighs 120 to 140 grams, is 18 to 24 centimetres long, sees poorly and lives underground, feeding primarily on earthworms.

The species' habitat ranges from northern California to just inside the Canadian border in the Fraser Valley. It is not endangered in the U.S.

lpynn@vancouversun.com

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on March 18, 2009, 10:24:16 PM
Please don't forget the important meeting on this subject tomorrow night,Thursday March 19 starting at 6:30 at the Best Western Hotel on Lickman Road. We hope for a good turnout
The committee has been working very hard on this file on behalf of the fish and their habitat that is being threatened by gravel removal projects.

Come out and hear first hand what has been discussed on this thread the last while. A open mike time will be offered so you can ask any questions you may have.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on March 27, 2009, 02:45:09 PM
My letter to the editor that appears in today’s Chilliwack Progress re gravel.


MLAs fail to show at gravel meeting



On March 19 the Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee (FRGSC) sponsored a public meeting in Chilliwack to discuss concerns about the loss of fish habitat due to the ongoing gravel removal program on the Fraser River. The FRGSC is a broad-based coalition of groups including the BC Wildlife Federation (35,000 members), David Suzuki Foundation, the BC Federation of Drift Fishers, the Fraser Valley Salmon Society, the Fraser Valley Angling Guides Association and others. The FRGSC also has a highly qualified team of experts who have been assessing and reviewing the issue from a technical and scientific perspective.

The committee put in a considerable amount of work preparing technical presentations to inform the public and politicians the reasons as to why they feel fish and fish habitat have been compromised by Fraser River gravel removal projects over the last several years. It needs to be emphasized that the committee is not against gravel removal when it is done in an environmentally responsible manner and there is evidence this removal actually does aid in flood protection.

Invitations were sent to the local-government politicians as well as the provincial environment minister Barry Penner and the minister responsible for public safety and Solicitor General John van Dongen to attend the public meeting or send appropriate staff from their respective ministries to hear first-hand the concerns FRGSC have.

The committee was pleased that the City of Chilliwack, the Fraser Valley Regional District (Area C) and the Agassiz-Kent areas were represented. As well the NDP environment critic Shane Simpson took the time and interest to drive from Vancouver to attend the meeting.

However, I was extremely disappointed that MLAs Penner and van Dongen did not bother to attend or send relevant ministry staff to hear important environmental evidence presented by the committee’s technical members. This was most disappointing. Minister Penner did send, however, at the last minute a letter indicating he was not coming, albeit he did commit his staff to meeting with the FRGSC at some time.

The take-home message it appears from all of this is that neither the ministry of environment, nor the public safety and Solicitor General, considers this an important issue, either from a flooding perspective or an environmental viewpoint. This, of course, is remarkable given the level of rhetoric in the media from government how important gravel removal in the Fraser River is from both a flooding and a fisheries perspective.

Even with these continuing setbacks the FRGSC will continue their commitment to attempt to protect our precious fish stocks and their habitat for future generations.

We also will take minister Penner up on his offer to meet with management and technical staff to engage in dialogue in regard to the issues we feel so strongly about.

Chris Gadsden

Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee member

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on March 28, 2009, 09:19:21 PM
Chilliwack Progress
Gravel forum fails to excite public
 
Text   By Robert Freeman - Chilliwack Progress


Published: March 27, 2009 1:00 PM

 The general public - and B.C. Liberal government representatives - stayed away in droves from an open forum last week on gravel mining in the Fraser River.

Only about 75 people showed up at the Thursday meeting organized by the Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee, an ad hoc group of environmental organizations.

None of the government officials, including Chilliwack MLAs John Les or Barry Penner, and none of the First Nations leaders invited to the meeting were present either.

But BC Wildlife Federation president Mel Arnold suggested the poor turn-out wouldn't deter the committee's efforts to change the way gravel is being removed from the river.

"We can do this meeting again," he said, urging the people in the room to get the word out to friends and neighbours to put the heat on local politicians.

"The consequences go far further than this gravel reach," he said, including the "future of the fish" resource in B.C.

Hundreds of acres of fish habitat are being destroyed as the government approves the removal of more gravel than the river is depositing in the reach, according to the committee.

NDP environment critic Shane Simpson, who attended the meeting, took a political poke at Penner and Les for not doing the same.

"It's unfortunate my colleagues who represent the community ... didn't come too," he said. "I'm sure they would have learned something as well."

"It's not about flood protection," he added, as claimed by the government. "It's about river aggregate. It's about mining. It's about making money."

He urged those at the forum to write or call their MLAs and demand answers before the May 12 provincial election.

"We're eight weeks away from trying to get our jobs back - that's the reality," he said. "The B.C. Liberals may feel pretty safe out here in the valley ... the reality is none of us should feel safe."

Meanwhile, the committee is looking at other ways of getting its message out to the public, including mailing out postcards to valley residents.

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Morty on March 30, 2009, 12:48:11 PM
Have they finished with the hauling from Peg yet? 

I noticed an item on March 13th that they had started up again and I'm wondeing if there's public access out onto the bar again.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on March 30, 2009, 05:29:28 PM
Response from Penner and Les re my letter above, Chilliwack Progress.


We write in response to Chris Gadsden’s letter in your last edition criticizing our absence at a meeting featuring speakers opposed to how the government is managing gravel accumulation in the Fraser River. (MLAs fail to show at gravel meeting, Chilliwack Progress, March 27.)

We were unable to attend because of other commitments. While we try hard to attend all meetings, we have still not yet mastered the skill of being in two places at once.

The issue of proper river management is of great importance to us. The safety of our community and residents demands it. That is why we worked hard to obtain over $5 million over the last three years to upgrade dikes, improve pumps and install further exfiltration wells. Further, we now have in place, in partnership with the federal government, a $140 million program over seven years for further improvements.

An integral aspect of appropriate river management is the removal of sediment and gravel build-up in the Agassiz and Chilliwack reach of the Fraser River. We also know that because much of this accumulation has not been removed in past years, that the average elevation of the river bottom has risen, reducing the freeboard, or safety margin, that was part of the original engineering design of the dikes.

Just as important as removing this material from the river, is the importance of doing it responsibly and in compliance with all relevant legislation. That is why each removal application is referred to the federal departments of Fisheries and Oceans and Transport Canada, and is subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). The recent CEAA screening reports clearly indicate that the impact on the river environment is extremely modest.

Also, these applications are referred to the provincial ministries of the Environment and Agriculture and Lands. As these applications are prepared we consult closely with, and take advice from environmental consultants and river hydraulic engineers. If permits are granted, all work proceeds under the direct supervision of an environmental monitor.

As you can see, we are not “acting blindly” as suggested by the group Mr. Gadsden belongs to. About 40 government funded studies have been done since 1999. They demonstrate the need for an organized and focussed sediment and gravel removal program, in conjunction with the dike improvements our government is funding.

It is absolutely important to protect fish habitat. It is at least equally important to keep people safe. We believe we can accomplish both objectives.


Barry Penner, MLA for Chilliwack-Kent and John Les, MLA for Chilliwack-Sumas
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: troutbreath on March 30, 2009, 06:56:37 PM
Way to bite them on the bum Chris. ;D You know they only responded cause thats their election area. You really hit a nerve with those two gravel mouthed, fish killing, biblical flood sooth saying Bozo's. I owe you a double double for the good work. I thought Les was in jail? Maybe that's why he didn't make the meeting.;D
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on March 30, 2009, 08:29:38 PM
Salmon Kills and the Politics of Mining the Fraser
This road killed two million salmon. Photo by C. Pollon. BC's hunger for gravel is voracious.
By Christopher Pollon
Published: April 19, 2006




TheTyee.ca
Early last month near Chilliwack, a construction company built a road across the main stem of the Fraser River to access a small alluvial island known as Big Bar. Jutting 90 degrees from the bank, the causeway had a damming effect downstream, killing at least two million incubating pink salmon along one of the most productive fish habitats in the world.

The company operating at Big Bar was mining for gravel, a non-renewable commodity that over the next decade, as British Columbia advances towards ambitious commitments to complete Olympic infrastructure, the Gateway Project and the Canada (RAV) Line, will become dramatically more valuable and contentious.

In the Fraser Valley, a world removed from Vancouver, local papers followed livid fishermen and environmentalists on a near daily basis. To many on the riverbank, the Big Bar incident was the latest outrage committed by an industry seemingly indifferent to the survival of salmon, sturgeon and anything else reliant on the floodplain environment for life. But most of the vitriol was reserved for the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), the federal body entrusted with protecting fish and fish habitat.

"Heads should roll at DFO over this," said ex-DFO habitat biologist Otto Langer to the Chilliwack Progress on March 15. "In a sense, they're putting the coyote in charge of the chicken coup…[the gravel industry's] only real obligation is to make money, it's not to protect the environment."

The March episode at Big Bar illustrates the clash of widely diverging views regarding the benefit of large-scale gravel extraction from the Fraser River. To some, it's a dishonest cash grab for industry, a scourge on the earth and water; to industry and government, it is a creator of jobs and tool to protect property and people from the next great flood. The only thing that is certain in this entire heated exchange is that southwest British Columbia needs more gravel and needs it soon.

Built on aggregate

Although urbanites rarely consider it, our built environment is dependent on the availability of vast quantities of gravel and sand. Known as aggregate in the construction industry, it comprises 80 percent of concrete and over 90 percent of asphalt. Cities, towns and civilization as we know it could not exist without it.

ADVERTISEMENT
Consider the RAV line, which will soon be excavating its way up the Cambie corridor; before it is completed, it will require at least half a million tonnes of concrete, which translates into 400,000 tonnes of aggregate.

Most of our aggregate is local; mined from pits or blasted and crushed from hard rock quarries on dry land. Because the product is cheap, bulky and very heavy, profitable mining of the resource depends on tapping local sources. The Fraser River is a minor source in the grand scheme, accounting for no more than 20 percent of the total mined from all sources in the Georgia Basin.

But with increasing urbanization and the Agricultural Land Reserve tying up valuable gravel reserves, it creates the imperative for industry to tap new sources, including the round, smooth river rock that is carried and deposited by the Fraser River between Mission and Hope.

"We've got enormous gravel demand on the horizon for the Gateway Project and other public building priorities moving forward," said Mike Proudfoot, spokesman for the Ministry of Transport, who expects the Pitt River Bridge/South Perimeter Road to enter Environmental Assessment as soon as this summer. "We will be looking at accessing materials from the Fraser, where it can be [mined] to benefit flood control."

Public safety or profit?

According to Maple Ridge/Mission Liberal MLA Randy Hawes, gravel mining is just as much about public safety as it is about making money. Since a moratorium on river removal was lifted by the federal government in the late nineties, this real estate agent turned politician has emerged as nothing short of a crusader for gravel mining in the Fraser Valley.

"Flood risk increases when we don't take gravel out, because there are tonnes of gravel being deposited between Mission and Hope each year by the river," says Hawes. "The bottom of the river is [gaining elevation] as a result, and that means that dykes that were built to withstand to certain river height are not adequate."

Part 2 next post

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on March 30, 2009, 08:32:34 PM
It was pressure over the need for flood control that motivated the DFO to sign a 2004 agreement with Land and Water BC to drastically increase the rate of gravel extraction from the Fraser River. Under the agreement, the DFO, which must formally authorize gravel removal because it damages fish habitat, approved the removal of 500,000 cubic metres of gravel from the Fraser this year alone.

An internal DFO memorandum acquired through the federal Access to Information Act illustrates the political pressure exerted by Fraser Valley politicians on the DFO to approve large scale gravel removal. On November 4, 2003, DFO Regional Director John C. Davis wrote to Deputy Minister Larry Murray, quoting former Chilliwack Mayor John Les as follows:

"DFO puts fish before people, continues to be an obstacle to gravel removal and…catastrophic results cannot be far behind. DFO [says] 'fish first…and to hell with the people.'

Davis continues to Murray: "Local municipalities (Chilliwack, Kent and Abbotsford) are adamant that gravel removal is a critical step in the management of flood levels. There is, however, a general lack of analyses/information that demonstrates that gravel removal has or will reduce flood hazard by lowering the dyke profile."

DFO signed the Lower Fraser River Gravel Removal Plan ten months later. Critics of the plan say the amount of gravel being removed now surpasses the total gravel flushed into the reach each year and that gravel mining as currently practiced does little to protect against flooding.

"To have flood control impact, you have to remove gravel from the middle of the channel and deepen it to allow the water to get down deeper," says John Werring, a biologist who attended the Big Bar site as a contractor for the David Suzuki Foundation. "But they're scalping these huge bars where the gravel is perched metres above the water level, and there's absolutely no impact that is going to occur as a consequence of where they're working."

Randy Hawes disagrees, saying that the process of scalping the bar tops of floodplain gravel bars has a "positive effect" on controlling flooding.

In December of 2004, the Sierra Legal Defense Fund filed a petition on behalf of five prominent fisheries experts and environmentalists asking that Federal Auditor-General Johanne Gélinas investigate the process leading the DFO to agree to enormous gravel extractions from the Fraser River, despite the warnings and concerns of scientists, environmental groups and commercial fishermen. Since being submitted to the AG, no response has been received to date.

'Aggregate Land Reserve'

Brad Kohl, Vice President of the Construction Materials Division at Lafarge Canada says that there are innumerable problems associated with commercial extraction of gravel from the Fraser River. The province and federal governments must agree on the areas to be mined, the DFO is obligated to oversee operations and there is a narrow window for removals - extraction can only happen in the low water months between January and mid-March.

"With accessing [Fraser gravel], there are also issues with landowners along the river, native bands and very few sites are right along the shoreline, so you have to build roads right out across the river to a lot of them."

Kohl says that there will be enough supply to meet the demand over the next decade in Greater Vancouver, although Fraser Valley gravel sources on land will become depleted, necessitating the transport of gravel by ocean barge from Texada Island.

Getting more valley gravel in production over the long term is being championed by Hawes, who is currently working with local governments and producers to create the equivalent of the Agricultural Land Reserve for gravel and aggregate materials.

"We're trying to identify a source of aggregate looking forward 100 years for the Fraser Valley," says Hawes, who is the chair of the new Fraser Valley Aggregate Pilot Project. "We hope to identify aggregate supply areas and protect them by putting them into official community plans."

Hawes confirms that sites on the Fraser River could be included in this mapping. This news is happening just as Maple Ridge is lifting its moratorium on gravel mining, which will see the municipality remove 300,000 tonnes a year from land sources to meet local demand within the municipality.

Fraser tributaries targeted

New sources of river gravel from the Fraser River drainage are also being explored to meet Greater Vancouver's future demand. In January of this year, Mosquito Consolidated Gold Mines Ltd. announced its intention to mine gravel and placer gold from 13 claims covering nearly 1000 hectares in the Chehalis River watershed near Mission.

"The demand for high quality gravel and sand products is at an all-time high and is expected to continue beyond the 2010 Olympics," the company said in a January 2006 press release. "Local supplies have been or are being depleted and new supplies are desperately required."

Unanswered questions about the environmental impacts of this project - in a watershed endowed with healthy runs of four different salmon species, steelhead and cutthroat trout - landed the Chehalis on the Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C.'s 2006 list of endangered rivers.

"The experience in southern British Columbia…is that gravel mines in these extraordinarily high-rainfall watersheds cause massive siltation and destruction of fisheries resources," says Dr. Marvin Rosenau, former provincial government fisheries scientist and author of numerous papers on gravel extraction and fish. "Given the steep topography of the proposed Chehalis mine site, the massive area to be exposed, it is only a matter of time before such a project will irrevocably and negatively impact this watershed."

Brian McClay, President of Mosquito Consolidated Gold Mines Ltd., did not return calls from the Tyee to address Dr. Rosenau's position that Chehalis mining would severely impact the diversity of fish currently found in the watershed.

Christopher Pollon is a Vancouver-based journalist whose writing has appeared in the Globe and Mail, Montreal Gazette, Beautiful British Columbia, and many other papers and magazines.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on April 08, 2009, 11:31:54 AM

Re gravel in the cut from an article into today's Vancouver Sun.


First nations activists threaten the 'positive' Games picture
 

 

By Daphne Bramham, Vancouver Sun columnistApril 8, 2009 9:26 AM

 
But there's another side that few -- including the Four Host First Nations -- want visitors to even glimpse. It's the one that is driving militant warrior societies and first nations activists' threats to disrupt the Games through all kinds of civil disobedience, including possibly blocking the Sea to Sky Highway. Their complaints are both familiar and, often, justifiable.

And while the 2010 Olympics may be the greenest ever, they noted that tens of thousands of trees have been cut at Cypress Mountain, in the Callahan Valley and along the Sea to Sky Highway, mountains have been blasted and precious habitat destroyed. Concrete used in venue construction meant tonnes of gravel was mined from the Fraser Valley and destroyed salmon spawning grounds.

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: troutbreath on April 08, 2009, 12:02:32 PM
 Fish kill in the spirit of the Olympics :P If this was the greenest Olympics yet I'd hate to see a black one.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Morty on April 08, 2009, 09:26:44 PM
I was out at Peg on Saturday and took a drive through the "Leg" stretch.  I could not see any evidence of where they removed that mountain of gravel from.

Anyone know where they actually extracted it?
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on April 20, 2009, 08:08:20 PM
I was out at Peg on Saturday and took a drive through the "Leg" stretch.  I could not see any evidence of where they removed that mountain of gravel from.

Anyone know where they actually extracted it?
Over by the main channel.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on April 20, 2009, 08:16:25 PM

Letter to the Editor, Chilliwack Progress. This letter once again shows how the Provincial Government has been dealing or not dealing with this issue. Many others feel they handle the Fish Farm, and Run of the River projects the same way.

CG


BCWF questions gravel plan

 In response to your letter to the editor published March 31st, regarding the removal of gravel from the Fraser River between Mission and Hope over the last five years; ostensibly for flood protection, the BC Wildlife Federation would like to clarify some of the errors and omissions in your letter on behalf of the Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee and British Columbians.

The BC Wildlife Federation is the largest and oldest conservation organization in BC with 30,000-plus members. We are also a working member of the Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee, formerly the Ad Hoc Gravel Committee. For over 50 years our mandate has been “protecting, promoting and enhancing the wise use of the environment for the benefit of present and future generations” and some of our member clubs date back over 110 years. We have long been recognized in British Columbia as a responsible partner, historically working with government and stakeholders on behalf of our membership towards solution-based approaches to complex resource issues such as the gravel extraction on the Fraser River. We pride ourselves in taking collaborative problem-solving strategies to resource-management issues and our very real concerns in this instance are for the protection of fish habitat.

In contrast to your stated need to remove large amounts of gravel from the Fraser River to provide flood protection, we have pointed out that for the projects that have been undertaken over the last five years under the federal-provincial agreement, your own agency and consulting hydraulic engineers, hydrologists, and fluvial geomorporphologists have either not supported many or most of the locations, or the amounts that have been extracted. Their own analyses have shown the flood benefits to be statistically insignificant. While it has been onerous to get them, as we had to go through Freedom of Information for many of them, these positions are in writing and they are very clear as to the lack of flood protection these extractions provide and the danger to fish habitat. We encourage you to also seek them out.

Furthermore, while there is a deficiency of baseline fisheries information at locations where gravel is being removed, the extent of impacts to fish habitat where data are available, and the lack of habitat mitigation and/or compensation for those effects that do occur as a result of the gravel extraction, have been clearly and unequivocally laid out in writing by the consultants, stewardship groups and the agency staff responsible for authorizations. In contrast to your statement “The recent CEAA screening reports clearly indicate that the impact on the river environment is extremely modest…”, these same reports provide an abundance of data that demonstrate that the information is either lacking, and/or the impacts to habitat are of substantial magnitude. That the authorizing Department of Fisheries and Oceans manager ignored those facts, and suggests that they are trivial, does not decrease their magnitude or make them any less real.

The discontinuity between the positions of the authorizing managers versus that of the science and engineering that has been undertaken for this initiative has now become the key issue relating to Fraser River gravel removal: the authorizing managers of the regulatory agencies are continuingly and with impunity over-ruling the information, objections and recommendations of the professional scientists, technicians, biologists and engineers in regards to their positions regarding the lack of benefits to flood protection, recommendations to not proceed for specific projects and evaluation of the extent of the impacts to habitat.

In regards to the most recent extraction that was undertaken at Tranmer Bar, 2009, your own Water Stewardship Division flood-engineers, technicians and fluvial geomorphologists were very clear that this project had little or no benefit to flood protection. The scientists and biologists of the Fraser River Sturgeon Conservation Society, the Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee and your own Environmental Stewardship Division Ecosystem Section staff recommended that this project not go ahead based on the extent of the probable impacts to fish habitat. Yet your own Water Stewardship Division manager, with no more logical argument or information than “…it is my opinion…”, overruled the information and opinions of literally dozens of scientists, technicians, engineers, and reams of technical, hydraulic and fluvial geomorphic information.

Ministers Penner and MLA Les, we agree with your statement of the “importance of doing it (gravel removal) responsibly and in compliance with all relevant legislation.” You also state that you consult closely with and take advice from environmental consultants and river hydraulic engineers. However, if good science and engineering is simply ignored by government and its authorizing managers, there is no hope for this Province’s fish. We sincerely hope that you will consider this information and meet with us and our representatives to come up with collaborative solutions that address flood control and do not irreparably damage fish and fish habitat.


Mel Arnold

President, BC Wildlife Federation

Patti MacAhonic

Executive Director, BC Wildlife Federation


Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on April 24, 2009, 10:01:15 PM
Received this today, this is part of the Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee's petition to the Federal Auditor General to look into the gravel removal projects on the Fraser River.

CG

I received a call from the federal Auditor General’s office.

 

They will be tabling their report on their performance audit of the fish habitat protection and pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act on or about May 12th.  This audit also looks at the effectiveness of DFO’s new habitat management policies.  This is the audit that many of you participated in last year.

 

Following the release of that audit, members of the AG’s office are planning to come to BC to do a presentation on their findings.

 

They plan to be in Vancouver sometime shortly following the audit release or towards the end of May.

 

They would like an audience.

 

Can you please get back to me and let me know if you, or members of your organization, would attend a public airing of the AG’s findings.  The more people the better.

 

Hopefully, there will be media present.

 

The location is yet to be determined but it will be in downtown Vancouver.

 

OH! And spread the word.

 

John

 


 


Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Morty on April 24, 2009, 10:38:33 PM
Your efforts are appreciated Chris.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on May 19, 2009, 12:18:38 PM

At last we now have someone agreeing what the Fraser River Gravel Stewartship Committee has been saying all the time. I wonder what some Provincial polticans have to say now as they were adamant it was for flood protection all along. Another scandal in the making?




Millions of fish died due to gravel project
 
 
By Larry Pynn, Vancouver SunMay 19, 2009
 
The federal auditor-general has delivered a scathing report on Ottawa's efforts to protect fish habitat, including a lack of monitoring, enforcement and accountability, and citing Fraser River gravel removal that has killed millions of juvenile salmon.

The report by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development on behalf of the auditor-general finds that Fisheries and Oceans Canada "cannot demonstrate" that fish habitat is being adequately protected.

"The department does not measure habitat loss or gain. It has limited information on the state of fish habitat across Canada -- that is, on fish stocks, the amount and quality of fish habitat, contaminants in fish, and overall water quality."

The report also cites a lack of cooperation between the federal fisheries department and Environment Canada, adding the latter agency needs to develop better policies to pursue Fisheries Act violations, such as pollution that damages fish habitat.

The report also upholds the concerns of conservation groups about the removal of gravel in the lower Fraser River, saying it has killed millions of juvenile fish and failed to meet the province's stated objective of reducing flood risk.

Ian Matheson, director-general of habitat management for federal fisheries, said in an interview last week from Ottawa that his department accepts the report's findings and is committed to a three-year action plan to rectify the department's shortcomings, with regular updates to the office of Commissioner Scott Vaughan.

He said the department needs to prove it is "doing the right thing" and is already moving ahead on two fronts: one involves better coordination of project documents; the other is a risk-assessment model to better categorize the 7,000 projects annually received for assessment so staff can concentrate on the riskier ones.

Mark Angelo, chair of the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, called on the federal government to increase funding to the department to allow it to do a better job, but Matheson said he did not foresee an increase in staffing to address the commissioner's concerns.

Angelo added the department must set minimal standards for compliance and monitoring, noting it "doesn't even require proponents of lower risk activities to notify them. That has to change in future."

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."

In 2006, improper construction of a causeway for accessing one gravel removal site resulted in a side channel downstream drying up, exposing salmon nests and resulting in the loss of up to 2.25 million pink salmon.

Rebecca Reid, regional director of oceans habitat and enhancement, said in Vancouver a five-year agreement between Victoria and Ottawa allowed for the removal of up to 2.2 million cubic metres of gravel from the lower Fraser. Just over half of that amount was actually taken, she said.

The agreement has now been extended by one year while new conditions are drawn up to "minimize or avoid impacts to fish and fish habitat for any kind of development activity," including improved monitoring and an assurance of sufficient flow of water during future causeway construction.

Details of the new agreement are expected to be released for public comment in the fall. The next gravel removal is scheduled to take place between January and March 2010.

The study found that "changes in the flood profile were minimal in the removal area and were local to the removal site. Thus, gravel removal would not significantly affect the potential for flooding."

Officials at the B.C. Ministry of Public Safety, which has been involved in the gravel issue, and Environment Canada could not be reached to comment on the report's findings.

lpynn@vancouversun.com

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on May 25, 2009, 04:34:08 PM
The evidence keeps coming in but some continue to defend. :(



Chilliwack Progress
Auditor General slams DFO over Fraser gravel
 
   By Robert Freeman - Chilliwack Progress



Updated: May 25, 2009 4:04 PM

 The federal auditor general has waded into the Fraser River gravel removal issue, which for years has pitted flood protection interests against fish habitat protection.

But it’s not clear the AG’s report, which slams the department of fisheries for its inability to show it is “adequately protecting” fish habitat, using gravel removal as a case in point, is going to end the controversy.

While the report found studies show “gravel removal would not significantly affect the potential for flooding,” provincial officials still insist it does.

“We consulted with a variety of experts in the field,” Glen Thompson, director of B.C.’s strategic mitigation programs, said Friday. The government approved a series of gravel removals in the Fraser River as a result, to maintain the flood profile in the short term and reduce flood risk in the long term.

“We wondered how they drew that (opposite) conclusion,” Thompson said.

Eric Hellsten, spokesman for the AG’s office in Ottawa, said the DFO’s own studies were used for the report, but he agreed the science around the flood protection benefits of gravel removal is a “grey area.”

“It’s not something that everybody agrees on,” he said. “Regardless of the effect, it’s up to the DFO to ensure there is no damage to habitat.”

“That’s not being done,” he said.

A five-year agreement that set out the conditions for gravel removal has been extended to March, 2010 while federal and provincial officials negotiate a new one.

It’s expected the agreement will include the AG’s recommendations, which include better project monitoring and habitat compensation in compliance with the “no net loss of habitat” policy.

Rebecca Reid, the DFO’s Pacific region director of oceans habitat and enhancement, said the department has made “some errors in the past,” but “absolutely wants to avoid” situations like the Big Bar dewatering that killed thousands of pink salmon in 2006.

“We have accepted the (AG’s) recommendations,” she said.

“Over the past couple of years, we have clarified the role of the DFO and the province,” she added. “They have their own rationale for wanting gravel removal - the DFO’s job is to avoid (habitat) impacts.”

Marvin Rosenau, spokesman for the Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee, said the AG’s report “vindicates what we’ve been saying,” but he fears it will “drive the DFO even deeper underground.”

He charged the government approval process for gravel removals is “the Walkerton of B.C. and it’s tied to the development industry and their need to get cheap access to gravel.”

A more public process was promised the committee by the B.C. government in the next removal agreement, he said.

Chilliwack MLA John Les questioned whether the AG’s report was politically influenced since it was “quoting almost verbatim what the likes of Marvin Rosenau has been preaching for some time.”

“No one has ever claimed that one year of gravel removal would eliminate the flood hazard,” he said, but a “systematic, annual removal of sufficient quantities” would make a difference over time.

He said the Big Bar pink salmon kill mentioned in the report should not be downplayed, but steps have been taken by the B.C. government and the DFO to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

“Perspective dictates that it be noted there are still many millions of pink salmon coming back every year,” he added.

Hellsten said while the AG can only make recommendations, it’s hoped the report will be debated by at least one of three parliamentary committees: fisheries, environment or public accounts.

“We’re hoping that will happen in this case,” he said. “It’s a fairly significant issue.”

rfreeman@theprogress.com
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on September 07, 2009, 10:30:47 AM
We have a meeting with Transport Canada at BCIT tomorrow as we continue working on this file. We are discovering some interesting information lately which should not surprise us after what we hear coming from a certain government after the last election. :o :(
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Gaffer on September 07, 2009, 03:39:15 PM
We have a meeting with Transport Canada at BCIT tomorrow as we continue working on this file. We are discovering some interesting information lately which should not surprise us after what we hear coming from a certain government after the last election. :o :(
Bet you're not on Penner's Xmas list anymore Chris. Isn't it funny how the Report refuting everything Penner & Campbell said BEFORE the May 12 Provincial election --published and paid for by Ottawa --only appeared in print or was spoken about in BC the DAY AFTER the provincial election---- WE need a Legal Enquiry into the whole affair----Cheers
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: skaha on September 08, 2009, 02:16:25 PM
--In Penticton we cant put gravel in the river!
--for many years volunteers have been adding gravel to artificial spawning beds in Penticton creek.
--Penticton creek is within the city and has a cement bottom, it was contructed for flood control.

--after many years of adding gravel (with permission from MOE) using a loader or other equipment in the cement flume to provide clean spawning gravel for returning kokanee from okanagan lk. (The fishery has been closed for several years due to lack of sufficient numbers to allow a recreational fishery). MOE staff on site indicated they would no longer allow the use of in stream machinery as it would damage the stream bed. As I said before there has been no natural stream bed since the creek was given a cement floor and sides for flood control... no fish could spawn in it without the addition of the gravel spawn beds. 

--Is this the same ministry? They do not allow a machine to work in a cement flume to provide gravel for fish to spawn but you can set up a major extraction of gravel from the fraser NO PROBLEM.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Nicole on September 08, 2009, 06:23:00 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhbHEBzqmGA

Go to 1:25, and watch John Les talk about the true reason for the gravel extraction...

:)
Nicole
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Gaffer on September 22, 2009, 02:58:52 PM
My letter sent to the the editor

Mr. Tom Fletcher, although I usually enjoy reading your columns, I think your way off on this issue. I have been on the Fraser for the past 30 years fishing and boating and make a living guiding for salmon and sturgeon. Senior biologists on the Fraser have been working on this issue for many years and each and every one of them have come to the same conclusions. Removing large amounts of gravel from the Fraser will do little to lower the water table and do enormous damage to the salmon spawning and fish rearing habitat not to mention the damage to sturgeon habitat.
 
The Fraser River's prime rearing habitat is a very small area of gravel between Hope and Sumas Mountain. This 60 km stretch of river is probably the most important piece of water on the entire 1200 km of river. There are only a hand full of productive fishing, spawning and rearing locations on this piece of water and most of these locations are scheduled for massive gravel removal. How do I know this, well they hired me as a boat pilot to show them the proposed gravel removal sites.
 
In your column you forgot to mention the real reason that local politicians are all in favor of gravel removal. It really has nothing to do with flood control, it has to do with money. If they remove gravel, local communities like Chilliwack, Agassiz, Hope and so on will receive a royalty for the gravel, if they build the dykes, these same communities will have to pay millions of dollars in labor as they did this past spring. This is not new,it's been going on for years. Pay millions or receive millions?hmm. Don't need to be a brain surgeon to answer that one.
 
The so called build up of gravel in the lower Fraser is more a myth than fact. Over the past 10 years UBC has been conducting  studies try to determine the true volume of gravel deposited in the lower Fraser each year. Each and every time they come up with lower numbers and credit most of the so called build up to in-river shifting. In -river shifting occurs every freshet when hundreds of thousands of liters of water come rushing through the Fraser Canyon. This high volume of water tears apart at islands and gravel bars along the Fraser often depositing the gravel several miles down stream. That new bar that is formed at mile 26 is not new gravel but gravel that was removed from mile 23. For every new bar on the Fraser in the summer, I can show you exactly where it came from, upstream.
 
Instead of bashing dedicated people like Dr Marvin Rosenau, maybe you should write about the  real story. Our government hires dedicated, educated and highly respected biologists and when they don't like what they have to say. They remove them from their jobs and try to discredit them.
 
Have a great holiday.
 
Please feel free to call or e-mail us with any questions or concerns
 
Vic Carrao
STS Guiding Service
www.guidebc.com
sts@guidebc.com
Toll free- 1-866-771-3474
 
Great Letter Vic---Guess Fletcher and his ilk didn't get to read the "Solicitor General of Canada's 2009 Spring report of the Commissioner of the Environment & Sustainable Development-"Chapter 1-- Protecting Fish Habitat In The Fraser River " where it states DFO is GROSSLY @ Fault for allowing Gravel to excessively removed under the pretence of "FLOOD CONTROL" when none was required--- 'Course it came out the DAY AFTER the Povincial Election in BC--- AHHHH What a Country we live In---Cheers
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Gaffer on September 22, 2009, 03:04:31 PM
I was out at Peg on Saturday and took a drive through the "Leg" stretch.  I could not see any evidence of where they removed that mountain of gravel from.

Anyone know where they actually extracted it?
Under Your Feet---- Cheers
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on November 09, 2009, 05:18:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on November 12, 2009, 11:27:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on November 13, 2009, 11:43:25 AM
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


 

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: troutbreath on November 13, 2009, 09:21:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on November 13, 2009, 09:24:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on November 17, 2009, 06:35:58 PM
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.]

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Eagleye on November 17, 2009, 09:46:03 PM
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 :-X B . Penner !   >:(
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: skaha on November 23, 2009, 09:49:23 AM


--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.

 

 

 

 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on November 26, 2009, 10:41:18 PM
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
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Gaffer on November 28, 2009, 02:47:24 PM
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 ??
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on December 04, 2009, 10:13:32 AM
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
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on December 08, 2009, 05:32:31 PM
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

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on December 15, 2009, 10:31:16 AM
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.!
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on December 17, 2009, 12:59:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on February 16, 2010, 03:01:53 PM
The latest story.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/fraser_valley/theprogress/news/84508337.html
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on February 19, 2010, 10:40:36 AM
Another story with reference to gravel.

Sto:lo ready to speak out
Want a voice at Cohen inquiry on sockeye salmon
Paul J. Henderson, The Times
Published: Friday, February 19, 2010
Some local groups want to present information at the federal commission set up to look into the decline of sockeye salmon in the Fraser River as applications for standing are being accepted now.

Among those that will apply for standing at the Cohen Commission of Inquiry are the Sto:lo Tribal Council and the Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee (FRGSC), which is a coalition of environmental organizations, angling groups, scientists and others.

On Nov. 5, 2009, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced an inquiry would be held to look into the collapse of the sockeye salmon fishery in the Fraser. Only about seven per cent of the estimated 8.7 million sockeye returned to the Fraser River last year.



B.C. Supreme Court Justice Bruce Cohen was named to head the inquiry with a mandate of reporting by May 1, 2011. On Tuesday, the Cohen Commission formally asked for applications for standing until Mar. 3.

"Based on its findings, the commission will make recommendations for improving the sustainability of the sockeye salmon fishery in the Fraser River, including, as required, any changes to the policies, practices and procedures of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in relation to the management of the Fraser River sockeye salmon fishery," a press release from the Cohen Commission stated.

On Wednesday, Ernie Crey from the Sto:lo Tribal Council confirmed they would apply for standing as did John Werring, a biologist with the David Suzuki Foundation, one of the member organizations in the FRGSC.

"There is a habitat loss issue, and there's also fishery management issue," Werring told the Times Thursday. "The Department of Fisheries and Oceans are involved on both fronts: ensuring that fish habitat is not being destroyed but also that the fisheries are being managed."

Werring has long taken great issue with the ongoing practice of removing gravel from the Fraser River for the construction industry under the guise of flood protection.

Local MLAs John Les and Barry Penner have argued that gravel removal is essential to protect Chilliwack from flooding, but Werring calls that argument "superfluous."

"The documents that we have, even from fisheries and oceans [DFO), clearly state that largescale gravel removal will do nothing to alleviate the flood risk. We are arguing this is market-based."

Werring sees a direct correlation between salmon stock declines and gravel removal, pointing to 2007 when thousands of salmon were left "high and dry" after a causeway to access gravel was built.

"They are taking gravel right off a gravel bar . . . we know these habitats are critical," he said.

"They are not taking gravel out from locations that would help the flood profile; they are taking it out of very convenient, easily accessible
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on February 19, 2010, 12:33:19 PM
Today in the Chilliwack Progress.

Gravel extraction putting Fraser sturgeon at risk


In the recent article on Fraser River Gravel Extractions (Gravel removal
gets under way in Fraser River, Chilliwack Progress, Tuesday Feb. 16),
Dwayne Meredith, acting director of strategic mitigation projects at
Emergency Management BC (EMBC) is ascribed as saying that all the sites
cleared environmental requirements of federal legislation, and that all
had fisheries modelling and topographical surveys done prior to
approval.

This is only partially true. Documents received through a Freedom of
Information request clearly indicate that there have been no technical
reviews of impacts of gravel extraction on white sturgeon habitat
associated with any of the 2009/10 gravel extraction projects for the
Fraser River. This is confirmed in an email recently penned by DFO in
which it is stated: "MoE ESD [BC Ministry of Environment Environmental
Stewardship Division] has advised DFO that while the absence of the
pre-assessment data was not ideal, the province felt that the risk to
sturgeon was not going to compromise their overall management
objectives."

Lower Fraser River White Sturgeon have been classified by the Committee
on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) as endangered
and both the provincial and federal government have committed to doing
everything they can to protect this vulnerable species, short of listing
it as endangered under Canada's Species At Risk Act.

Both DFO and the province have been repeatedly advised of this
shortcoming over the past six months by the Fraser River Gravel
Stewardship Committee (a committee made up of respected scientists and
concerned citizens) and the Fraser River Sturgeon Conservation Society
and have repeatedly been asked to delay these gravel extractions until
these studies have been done. Even provincial fisheries biologists have
recommended that these gravel extraction not proceed until potential
impacts to sturgeon can be determined.

But all of this has been, to no avail.

Instead of living up to their commitments to protect the sturgeon,
senior bureaucrats from the MOE and EMBC have over-ruled their
biologists, ignored concerned scientists and citizens groups and have
decided to extract the gravel anyway, and DFO has capitulated saying the
whims of the province, where it comes to gravel extraction, supersede
their mandate to protect our fish and fisheries.

It is a sad day indeed when the protection of species that are known to
be endangered in Canada is sacrificed so that governments can achieve
their "management objectives"; one of which in this case, is to ensure
that the lower mainland construction industry has an adequate supply of
gravel to sate its voracious, and ever-growing appetite.

John Werring

Aquatic Habitat Specialist

David Suzuki Foundation

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on February 21, 2010, 10:20:29 PM
Here is some brief videos I shot today at Gill Bar. Not the best quality but gives you an idea what is going on out there. Note they are also screeening gravel on site. A first for gravel excavation projects on the Fraser. To me a sad day to see this going on again this year on the largest salmon producing river in the world or maybe it was at one time but with activity like this it sure does not help salmon, other fish species and sturgeon stocks. Of course this aggregate is worth millions of dollars to some people and that is why it is allowed, even though some say it is to save the Valley from a flood. ??? :o


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICnzg6xJO7E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRg_QaDkOGM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mx-OQ-GnB4
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: skaha on February 22, 2010, 08:09:33 AM
Instead of living up to their commitments to protect the sturgeon,
senior bureaucrats from the MOE and EMBC have over-ruled their
biologists, ignored concerned scientists and citizens groups and have
decided to extract the gravel anyway, and DFO has capitulated saying the
whims of the province, where it comes to gravel extraction, supersede
their mandate to protect our fish and fisheries.

---This is no excuse: DFO and senior bureaucrats from MOE and EMBC can and should make a statement that they agree or do not agree with the decision.  I can only conclude from this that DFO, MOE and EMBC senior staff agree that no significant impact will occur. In case they have forgotten their is a Professional ethic which is supposed to supersede political correctness. 
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on February 28, 2010, 01:44:45 PM
For those interested in this topic Here are 4 video's that the Common Sense Canadian has put together and posted on u tube this week re gravel extraction on the Fraser River. The videos I feel help to explain the facts to this issue from the Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee's stand point. This year three sites, Gill Bar, Little Big Bar and Hamilton Bar presently are having gravel extracted.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H21_wq6ecJk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZbMgCoJuXk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu4WNWHJ_1E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utWmoX0yB6o
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on March 05, 2010, 12:41:11 PM
More gravel stories from today. ::)

http://www2.canada.com/chilliwacktimes/news/story.html?id=c40282dd-06ed-4f77-9a92-f472c27c2389

http://www.bclocalnews.com/fraser_valley/theprogress/news/Gravel_pit_proposed_in_red_zone_of_Chilliwack_River_Valley.html
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on March 11, 2010, 10:30:19 AM


The latest on this continuing saga

Provincial environment official concerned over threat to endangered species
From page A2 The B. C. government is allowing the removal of up to 320,000 cubic metres of gravel from three sites in the lower Fraser River despite the concerns of a high-ranking environment official for the habitat of endangered sturgeon.

DAMIEN GILLIS/ SPECIAL TO THE VANCOUVER SUN Gravel extraction at Little Big Bar, on the lower Fraser River just downstream of the Agassiz-Rosedale Bridge. A private company owned by Cheam band chief Lincoln Douglas is handling the province-approved extraction amid concerns that sturgeon habitat is being harmed.
 
Link’s Contracting and Aggregate Supply Ltd. — a private company owned by Lincoln Douglas, chief of the Cheam First Nation — is authorized to haul up to 79,000 cubic metres at Little Big Bar and up to 185,000 cubic metres at Gill Bar. Vandale and Sons Contracting is hauling up to 56,000 cubic metres at Hamilton Bar. All work must be done on dry land and completed by March 31.

In an e-mail, Ross Neuman, head of the ecosystems section for the Ministry of Environment in the Lower Mainland, raised concerns about this winter’s gravel extraction, especially at Little Big Bar, downstream of AgassizRosedale Bridge.

The e-mail, dated Nov. 18, 2009, and copied to various provincial and federal officials, was obtained through a freedom of information request.

Neuman expresses disappointment at the absence of an assessment of sturgeon habitat and said he “ considers gravel extraction at Little Big Bar to pose a very high risk to environmental values in general and white sturgeon in particular.”

Emergency Management B. C., part of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor-General, says it authorized the gravel removals under agreement with Ottawa to reduce the risk of flooding during the spring freshet.

A 2009 report by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development on behalf of the federal auditor-general found that previous removals killed up to 2.25 million young pink salmon ( when gravels were de-watered), occurred without full authorization and did little to reduce flood risk.

Otto Langer is the retired head of habitat assessment for the federal fisheries department who now serves as scientific adviser to the Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee, a group of fish advocates.

He described the federal review of the provincial gravel removal initiative as a “ rubber stamp charade” and agreed with Neuman that studies should be done before industrial mining of the river.

Langer described “ high bar gravel habitat” as rare and important places where sturgeon spawn starting in spring at high-water levels and the eggs hatch shortly after. Birds such as Canada geese also use these bars in lower water.

( Salmon, in comparison, spawn in the fall when the water levels are lower and the eggs remain in the gravel over the winter.)

Jason Hwang, a habitat and enhancement manager with federal fisheries, said Tuesday that B. C. and Ottawa continue to negotiate a “ comprehensive monitoring framework” for future gravel excavations that would include an assessment of sturgeon as well as salmon usage of specific sites.

That won’t happen for this year’s operations, however the province is committed to conducting a study of the three bars post-gravel extraction to gain information on gravel, water flows, invertebrates, and evidence of sturgeon spawning.
Officials with Emergency Management B. C. and the Ministry of Environment were unable to immediately comment.

White sturgeon has been officially listed as endangered since 2003 by the federal Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. The committee cited “ habitat degradation and loss” as major threats over the years, including gravel extraction.

Sturgeon are slow to grow and late to mature and are the subject of a catch-and-release only sport fishery. It is Canada’s largest freshwater fish ( giving the province primary management authority) and can grow to six metres and live more than a century.

The Fraser River Sturgeon Conservation Society in 2004 estimated the population of white sturgeon measuring 40 to 220 centimetres in length at just over 57,000 between Steveston and Yale. Only about 10 per cent of the population are estimated to be sexually mature.

Douglas, who was elected Cheam chief last November, said he sought the gravel removal authorization this winter at Gill Bar and Little Big Bar because he has the experience, adding the Cheam First Nation might decide in future to apply for its own removals. The gravel is being stockpiled on band land.

Douglas said he has employed up to eight band members in various positions related to the gravel extraction. He added that the value of river gravel as construction aggregate is reduced because it contains wood and that the removals don’t represent a windfall.

“ It costs a lot of money,” he said of the removal. “ It’s a huge risk for me.”

The province is not receiving a royalty for the gravel.

Neuman said in his e-mail that of the various sites slated for gravel extraction this winter, “ Little Big Bar was ranked the highest risk with five of the seven values rated ‘ very high risk’.”

He added: “ Sturgeon spawning has been confirmed immediately upstream of Little Big Bar and might also occur in channels immediately adjacent to the site.”

Sturgeon “ should be expected to use habitat within the area of influence of the proposed removal” and there “ seems to be general agreement that the area immediately surrounding Little Big Bar is sturgeon habitat.”

He stated that “ any activity that potentially destabilizes Little Big Bar will potentially impact sturgeon habitat” and emphasized that “ prudent management and recovery of this species precludes habitat impacts of an unknown degree and duration.”

In conclusion, he said: “ I recommend that gravel extraction at Little Big Bar not proceed until the impacts to sturgeon and sturgeon habitat have been properly assessed and these impacts have been considered in the context of the recovery needs of this at-risk species.”
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on March 11, 2010, 05:53:25 PM
I should have mentioned the article above was by Vancouver Sun reporter Larry Pynn and the picture was taken by Damien Gillis that was in the hard copy and can be seen online.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: troutbreath on March 11, 2010, 07:53:29 PM
Chief Douglas sounds as far from genuine as the rest of shoddy characters in this on going gong show. " habitat degradation and loss" seems so hard for these people to get hold of. A few studies on impact to those concerns would allow some reasonable flood control measures. Though dredging the river seems like a goofy priority, if it isn't a gravel money grab.....
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on March 27, 2010, 12:52:20 PM
Truck traffic terror
Steady stream of gravel dump trucks ripping up roads
Paul J. Henderson, The Times
Published: Friday, March 26, 2010
Anyone who has driven along Camp River Road in recent weeks may have had the feeling they took their life in their hands.

A near constant stream of dump trucks with trailers has been speeding along Carey, Jesperson and Camp River roads going to and from gravel mining operations on the Fraser River's gravel bars for the past few weeks.

And with all that traffic, the city roads are taking a beating.


Nigel Argyle has lived on Camp River Road for 30 years and despite the fact that provincially sponsored gravel removal projects have gone on in the past, this year's damage is unprecedented.

"I've never seen it like this ever," Argyle told the Times Wednesday. "What I see saddens me tremendously. . . . They have basically destroyed the road, period."

A short drive along any stretch of Camp River Road illustrates the damage with pot holes, cracks in the road, as well as compacted shoulders, sometimes just inches away from trees and telephone poles at spots where gravel trucks meet on the narrow country road.

"They are packing that so hard there will be no drainage on that side of the road," Argyle said. "If the [city] fills it up and regrades it, there still will be no drainage.

"I wish Sharon Gaetz would come up and see for herself."

For the city's part, Gaetz said they are aware of the number of trucks on the roads because of the gravel removal projects, and that road repair will be paid for through fees charged the contractor.

"Under our Soil Deposit Bylaw, the city charges a fee for each truck load of gravel," she said via e-mail Thursday. "This money is then used to repair our roads in high traffic areas yearly. The contractor will do some of the shoulder repair; otherwise the gravel fee covers the rest of the repair cost."

But Argyle suspects the damage he sees on Camp River Road goes well beyond some patching and repairs.

"If they do this, they will have to be prepared to rebuild the whole road," he said. "It's not designed to take this load."

Argyle said he has no issue with gravel removal or even the large trucks passing in front of his home and business, something other area residents have taken issue with in the past. It's the irreparable damage to the road he uses every day that has him concerned as a taxpayer.

The safety issue on the road, while not trivial, is secondary to Argyle, but one that he is keenly aware of nonetheless.

He said in recent days trucks have been slowing down for some reason, but there are still safety issues for those who use the road regularly.

Dwayne Meredith, manager of the flood protection program at Emergency Management B.C., said the gravel removal at this location is set to end by next week.

phenderson@chilliwacktimes.com

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on April 09, 2010, 10:07:18 PM
This file never seems to end

.'Victory' through error
Paul J. Henderson, The Times
Published: Friday, April 09, 2010
The ongoing issue of gravel removal from the Fraser River hit a semantic snag this week as the Seabird Island Band claimed they had "achieved a victory" and an environmental group had admitted error in referring to gravel removal as "gravel mining."

"The issue of gravel removal on the lower Fraser River is highly emotionally charged," said Ernie Crey, senior policy advisor for the Sto:lo Tribal Council, in an interview with the Times Wednesday. "There's a lot of misunderstanding about the removal of gravel and some of the confusion is fed by statements in the press by environmental groups."

In the Seabird Island press release issued April 6, the band claims the David Suzuki Foundation has admitted its error in referring to gravel removal as "gravel mining."


Gravel removal from the river is an important public safety work and an important component in maintaining fish habitat," Crey is quoted as saying in the release.

The issuance of the release stemmed from a series of e-mail exchanges between Chief Clem Seymour and Jay Ritchlin, director of marine and freshwater conservation for the David Suzuki Foundation.

But Ritchlin says it is "just not a correct interpretation" to say he admitted error.

"I don't want to be rude or insensitive," he told the Times. "That means a lot to me, but the idea that somehow means we no longer think there are concerns about gravel mining or it shouldn't be called gravel mining, that's not what I said. That's not what I conveyed."

Ritchlin said the press release was a "bit of a surprise" as he has been having a conversation with Seymour "about trying to create a better working relationship on these issues."

The David Suzuki Foundation is part of a group of environmental groups and sports anglers called the Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee that is concerned about the impacts on fish habitat caused by the gravel removal operations.

But Crey said that gravel accretion in lower Fraser is a concern itself for fish habitat and the removal helps lower water levels, protect salmon spawn and protect eroding banks.

Crey's biggest issue is that some environmental groups seem to engage other First Nations when they work on other areas of concerns such as the Great Bear Rainforest or in Haida Gwaii, but in the Fraser Valley the Sto:lo are ignored.

"They did not bother to make contact with us from the very outset," he said. "They didn't even bother to make a phone call to tribal council offices and say, 'We are from the David Suzuki Foundation, we are hear to talk to you about concerns that we have.' They didn't do that."

Ritchlin said the foundation is trying to do a better job of communication and of being aware of First Nations concerns, but that environmental impacts won't be ignored.

"We are still very committed to having an ecological lens put on any habitat change in the river, regardless of what you call it," he said.

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on May 04, 2010, 06:17:32 PM
From Hansard today

V. Huntington: I'm just using the language out of the service plan. So I was assuming that there might be something in addition to the delegation agreement that we aren't aware of at this point. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As the minister will recall, I asked a couple of questions a number of months ago, I guess now, on gravel extraction in the Upper Fraser. My concern at that time was that they were proceeding with a gravel extraction agreement prior to the Cohen Inquiry. I thought that that showed a lack of respect for the purpose of the inquiry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I also asked whether the minister or the office of the Solicitor General, the emergency measures office, would provide the scientific documents that sustained and showed that gravel extraction was helpful in flood control. I haven't received those documents. I was wondering whether the minister and his staff could see fit to provide me with the science they have that says extraction is good and does help with flood control. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: I'll check with our counterparts in emergency management B.C. and the Ministry of Solicitor General. But it's self-evident that when you have 300,000 cubic metres of gravel deposited within a confined area every year — that fluctuates, but on average, 280,000 or more tonnes per year are deposited within a confined space, and it's confined because of the dikes there — you know that the river bottom has to rise. I know that it doesn't rise equally, and it doesn't rise in every location all the time, but over time we know that as you deposit something in a confined space, that area will start to fill up. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1455]

We have spent considerable dollars over the last number of years — tens of millions of dollars — on dike improvement projects around the province, including along the Fraser River. But you can't continue to simply build the dikes higher and higher without risking a more severe flood if those dikes should breach as the river gets higher in relation to the adjoining [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

CSA - 20100504 PM 009/ajb/1455

improvement projects around the province, including along the Fraser River, but you can't continue to simply build the dikes higher and higher without risking a more severe flood if those dikes should breach as the river gets higher in relation to the adjoining land.  [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There's also the issue of seepage, which farmers in my community are very familiar with. Even if the dikes are not overtopped, as that water level gets higher relative to the adjoining land the water starts to get pushed up through some kind of hydrometric pressure scenario that I don't fully understand. But the water does come up through farmers' fields, even if it doesn't come right over the top of the dike itself.  [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We will check with our counterparts in emergency management B.C. about what kinds of reports they have, but we have been committed to an environmentally responsible and regular process of gravel removal in an effort to try and maintain or improve the leeway between the top of the water and the top of the dikes.  [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Just before I sit down, I remember, too, last fall that the member herself expressed interest in having material removed from the part of the Fraser River near where she lives, and I guess that's indicative of other comments you get around the province, whether it's from Golden or elsewhere. Flood mitigation management is an issue of particular interest wherever people live close to rivers, and that's why our government's committed to continue to try to manage for that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

V. Huntington: I think, first of all, I'd like to say that I too live behind a dike, and I'm as equally concerned about flood control measures in the province and on the lower Fraser as anybody else. Yes, we do have a sedimentation problem, and I'm deeply in discussion with the Ministry of Transport at the moment with regard to their head lease negotiations with the Port of Vancouver, because all of their leaseholders are along the lower Fraser, and yes, we do sit on the river bottom.  [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

My concern with gravel extraction versus sediment removal is primarily a concern for what it does to the downstream siltation of spawning beds, and there's a great deal of science that shows that it's extremely hard on those beds. I am looking forward to the information about the scientific documents, because the documents I read, and I'll quote here….  [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

One, for instance, is the 2009 spring report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development — it's federal: "Engineering and scientific studies at different sites," some commissioned by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, "concluded that there was no reduction in the flood profile after gravel removal." And this is on the lower Fraser in the gravel reaches. "These studies stated that changes in the flood profile were minimal in the removal area" and were local only to that removal site. The report concludes that "gravel removal would not significantly affect the potential for flooding."  [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Similarly, a document by the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council states, "The gravel extraction appeared to have provided little benefit for flood control," and it adds that "according to the hydraulic models the water surface flood profile changes have been trivial as a fraction of these removals, generally less than 15 centimetres for up to 4.2 million cubic metres of gravel removed…." The document concludes that the "gravel removal agreement has been largely ineffective from an engineering standpoint." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So I truly am interested in receiving the science that the province is relying upon, because I think the spawning beds are in jeopardy, and I see no science that is indicating the gravel removal is anything but of benefit to the extraction companies and perhaps, too, the large-scale projects that are being undertaken in the province today.  [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: I appreciate that the member thinks there's some kind of conspiracy, but let me tell you that people living in the Fraser Valley, I think, have every right to expect flood protection, just like the member says she's interested in. She says that she wants sediment that's deposited in the river behind the dike where she lives to be removed to afford her flood protection, and so do people in the Fraser Valley where I live. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1500]

The principle's the same. Material gets deposited, and it erodes the freeboard — that is the difference between the high-water mark of the river and the dike — and reduces the amount of protection.  [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It's true that any one year's worth of work in terms of gravel removal is not going to dramatically reduce the profile. That's why you have to do it [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

CSA - 20100504 PM 010/jag/1500

the difference between the high-water mark of the river and the dike — and reduces the amount of protection. It's true that any one year's worth of work in terms of gravel removal is not going to dramatically reduce the profile. That's why you have to do it on an ongoing basis, and that's why a number of years ago the federal government signed an agreement with the province for a five-year plan. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In virtually every one of those five years the total amount of material removed did not reach the amount that had been indicated in that agreement. The amounts were often dramatically less than what that agreement had contemplated, for a variety of complicated permitting reasons. That's because permitting is required, and a lot of work has to go into it before the work is allowed to proceed. That is because we want to make sure that we're also balancing public safety with making sure that the environment is protected — in particular, fish habitat. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Just as Rome wasn't built in a day, you're not going to see a dramatic reduction in the flood levels or the water profile of the river through one year's or one season's worth of work. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I should note that the work isn't allowed to take place at any particular time of the year or throughout the year. It's restricted to what's known as the fisheries window when fisheries biologists indicate that it is the best time of the year to do work in and around the river. That typically, where I come from, is between January and mid-March, before the Fraser River starts to rise due to the melting of the accumulated winter snowpack around the southern half of the province. Sometimes also in August or September, after the spring freshet and before the fall rains come, there can be fisheries windows, but that's left up to DFO to determine. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

V. Huntington: Just before I take my seat I just want to say that all I'm interested in receiving from both the Solicitor General's Ministry and from the Ministry of Environment are the scientific documents that show that the annual gravel extraction does in fact aid flood control and does not hinder downstream spawning beds by the siltation or the removal of the hard sediment that holds those beds together. All I want is the documentation that reinforces the minister's position. I'm sure the department must have it, and I'd love to see it myself. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

To the official opposition: they can take over here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on June 16, 2010, 12:00:43 PM
Congratulations to Marv for this award, Dr Rosenau is a key person working on this file.


Rosenau earns prestigious award
  The Times June 15, 2010   Chilliwack-born conservationist Marvin Rosenau has been awarded the Canadian Wildlife Federation's Roland Michener Conservation Award. The award recognizes an individual who "has demonstrated a commitment to conservation through responsible activites that promote, enhance and further the conservation of Canada's natural resources."

Dr. Rosenau graduated from the University of British Columbia with an honours science degree in zoology and a master's through UBC's Institute of Animal Resource Ecology, from which he gained a greater understanding of behaviour and genetics of fish, which underpin many of our fisheries-management decisions. After receiving his doctorate, he began to examine the role of streams and their habitats, which foster the life and productions of various fish species.

Throughout his career Dr. Rosenau has studied angling, fish farming and, most recently, the impacts to habitat that are associated with human development, primarily on streams, riparian habitats and floodplains. Not only is Rosenau an accomplished conservation advocate, but he is also an author, a teacher, an academic and researcher. His concern with, and focus on, the irrevocable acts of human activities on fish and watershed ecosystems have allowed him to succeed tremendously as an advocate for wildlife conservation.

"CWF's Award Program recognizes the excellent work for wildlife being carried out across our country," said Wade Luzny, CWF executive vice-president. "We are thrilled with the depth and magnitude of all the nominations we receive. These awards are one way to pay tribute to what so many people have made their life work--to ensure our natural heritage remains for future generations."

Presently an instructor with BCIT's fish, wildlife and recreation program, Rosenau is currently on a sabbatical at the Aquatic Rivers Institute in Australia.


Read more: http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/technology/Rosenau+earns+prestigious+award/3156042/story.html#ixzz0r2lVkprF
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on July 14, 2010, 06:54:42 PM
Quick update-- BC Business has added videos of Marvin, John Werring, and Otto's presentations to the article:

http://www.bcbusinessonline.ca/bcb/top-stories/2010/06/03/gravel-extraction-bc039s-fraser-river
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on November 13, 2010, 04:03:44 PM
We are still working on this file and had a committee meeting the past week and our technical people will be making a presentation to Chilliwack City Council early in the New Year. Hopefully we can convince them this is all about money for the aggregate and not having any benefit for flood protection while fish habitat is damaged each year.

It continues to amaze me that Fisheries and Oceans Canada allows this to happen year in and year out.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on January 31, 2011, 08:52:57 PM
We are still working on this file and had a committee meeting the past week and our technical people will be making a presentation to Chilliwack City Council early in the New Year. Hopefully we can convince them this is all about money for the aggregate and not having any benefit for flood protection while fish habitat is damaged each year.

It continues to amaze me that Fisheries and Oceans Canada allows this to happen year in and year out.
6 of us from The Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee met with all City of Chilliwack City Council today along with all their Senior staff. Great presentations made by Marv and Otto. I hope this gave council and staff a better understanding of what this gravel mining is really all about and the damage it is doing to precious fish habitat.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on July 20, 2011, 12:35:13 PM
Today's Vancouver Sun, written by former Federal Fisheries Minister Tom Siddon. http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/water+legislation+teeth/5129507/story.html

Of course gravel excavation on the Fraser is part of the destruction of fish habitat. It is good to see Siddon to point out how the Provincial Government has just paid " a little more than lip service to environmental enforcement"  The Big Bar fish kill is an prime example of that.

Maybe one day we will have an government that will look after what God created and gave us the responsibility to care for it.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: skaha on July 20, 2011, 08:27:34 PM
--Although of concern.. it is not lack of enforcement that is the issue. Due to lack of staffing, if you want to put in a dock or alter a foreshore...with good intention... there is no way to get a permit in a timely mannor. This leads to blatant disregard for the law. Raising the fine for not having a permit when there is no one to issue a permit is not a solution.
--We key on enforcement yet the majority of people and corporations would comply when given informed advice in a timely mannor.  When it comes to enforcement we will of course key on small potatoes public...like giving a fine to a waterfront land or lease holder who has had a dock for 15 years and no permit. The person, as it is in their own back yard followed all guidelines that would have been in a permit if one had been issued. Yet as they have no chance to get a permit due to lack of staff to review and recommend conditions they or the previous owner chose to build the dock. Meanwhile back at the ranch a run of river project which arguably may be of more concern gets the rubber stamp to follow general guidelines and reduced so called red tap by making the project just under the required size for detailed environmental assessment.

--Now I know governent litigation lawyer advisors will tell us the government should not be in the busness of giving advice thus making government culpable if anything goes wrong... I say government should  take the resposibility and risk of providing competent, timely expert advice at least at the review stage. .. I am then all for strict enforcement when compliance does not occur but the fine should be to make it right not just a punative measure.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on December 06, 2011, 10:01:00 AM
From what we gather at this time no gravel extraction program in place on the Fraser this coming year.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on December 06, 2011, 01:51:18 PM
We were out inspecting some of the old gravel excavation sites a few weeks ago on the Fraser River.

Dr. Roseanu talks about the Spring Bar site here, please excuse the wind noise.

http://youtu.be/-EHR3JMNpzU
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Sandy on December 07, 2011, 06:38:45 AM
From what we gather at this time no gravel extraction program in place on the Fraser this coming year.

could it be that all the pre-load has been done for the near future projects? and hence the gravel is not needed;especially so from environmentally sensitive locations.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on December 12, 2011, 12:30:15 PM

 Fraser gravel mining threatens ecosystem, residents
  By Rudy North, Vancouver Sun December 12, 2011   The Fraser River between Mission and Hope is the largest natural salmon spawning channel in all of North America and a world-class natural heritage area of incredible value. The heart of the Fraser is out of sight of the Trans-Canada Highway, and consequently out of mind for most of the residents of the Lower Mainland. It is also an important gravel-removal site for the construction industry of the eastern Fraser Valley.

My initial interest in the area was in preserving the unique ecosystems found in this stretch of the Fraser before they are lost forever; however, I soon got caught up in the human-safety issue of the residents of the flood plain area.

The obvious merit of protecting this natural treasure is complicated by the need to assure the inhabitants that a flood of record such as those that occurred in 1894 and 1948 will not be a danger. The dikes are the front-line defence, and most obvious solution to the problem. They were upgraded after the flood of 1948. Since then, despite more than 60 years of population growth in the area, these dikes have not been adequately upgraded.

This is not being addressed by governments of any level. The constant political fight over who is responsible and therefore who should foot the bill for dike upgrades has resulted in infrastructure inertia, and the adoption of a policy of gravel removal as a cheaper form of flood protection. A "common sense" argument was used to assert that gravel removal in the order of 500,000 cubic metres was needed to offset new gravel coming down the river to prevent flooding. This benefited both commercial interests, as well as political interests that could point to yearly gravel extraction as progress being made for the safety of their constituents.

Studies criticizing the mining of the gravel reach have been challenged as being based on inadequate data. However, over the past decade, new and more detailed studies have been conducted and have resolved the uncertainty on the effects of gravel removal. The findings are:

"We know from substantial experience that individual sediment removal short of the order of a million cubic metres will not substantially affect local water levels in the short term. But sediment removal on such a scale would very significantly disrupt the aquatic ecosystem. There is, furthermore, concern that the current program pays too little attention to the potential ecological costs of sediment removal."

The quote above is from the 2010 report by Dr. Michael Church of the University of B.C., a leading fluvial (river) geomorphologist who is the foremost expert on the movement of gravel in the Fraser River system. This and similar findings in previous studies have been repeatedly ignored by the Ministry of the Environment.

Yet the dikes still have not been sufficiently upgraded, and gravel continues to be mined under the pretence of public safety, even though it has been proven to be ineffectual in mitigating floods. Unfortunately the issue has become an unresolved political football, championed by the provincial government with the complicity of the federal government and Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Gravel mining of up to 500,000 cubic metres a year has been sanctioned since 2004 and it is the official policy of the provincial government that removed the environmental arguments from the table by putting the program under the management of Emergency Management B.C.

The inhabitants of the area have been sold a misleading claim that has nothing to do with assuring their safety or protecting their property values from the prospect of floods. They should be outraged by this apparent deceit. If I lived in the area and my family and property were being put at risk, I would be tempted to use much stronger language to describe the issue.

But what is a worried homeowner in the Mission to Hope stretch of the Fraser River flood plain to believe? It should be obvious that flood safety and a healthy river environment are in fact complementary. Gravel removal poses serious environmental problems with no meaningful protection against flooding. Adequate dyking is expensive but the only realistic solution to flood risk.

As of Dec. 6, the provincial government has decided against further gravel mining in the Fraser River for the coming year. The government has stated that it is liaising with DFO to create a long-term management strategy for the gravel reach of the Fraser, which is to be commended as a first step toward protecting both the residents of the Fraser River flood plain and the spawning grounds of North America's most important salmon run.

For further information on gravel in the Fraser River, go to: BCIT Heart of the Fraser

http: //commons.bcit.ca/heartofthefraser/

UBC Fraser River Gravel Reach studies

www.geog.ubc.ca/fraserriver/index.html

Fraser Basin Council

www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/programs/fvr.html

Rudy North is an investor and philanthropist from Vancouver. He was admitted to the Order of Canada for his environmental philanthropic work last year.


Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Fraser+gravel+mining+threatens+ecosystem+residents/5845702/story.html#ixzz1gM0js5UJ
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on December 22, 2011, 12:23:00 PM
By Jennifer Feinberg - Chilliwack Progress
Published: December 22, 2011 9:00 AM
Updated: December 22, 2011 11:08 AM

Steps to prevent further flooding in Chilliwack’s unprotected areas will cost anywhere from $1.3 million up to a little more than $5 million.



Some property owners in the Carey Point area, on the northern end of Chilliwack, suffered localized flooding when a berm outside the east dike failed during the 2011 Fraser River​ Spring Freshet.



Significant erosion has been a headache for Chilliwack officials for years, with a shifting scour hole eating away at rip rap all along the riverbank from Carey Point to Island 22.



Council received a report Tuesday from city staffer Terra Friesen containing a range of engineering solutions prepared by consultants Northwest Hydraulic Consultants.



NHC recommended the least expensive of three options for Chilliwack, at a cost of $1.3 million. The alignment offered the most longevity, cost efficiency, as well as an access road and a $75,000 “check dam” to protect Orchard slough, according to the report.



The most expensive solution,v at $5.1 million, would see an access road built, and bank protection with an estimated 7,000 truckloads of gravel. Added to that would be up to $150,000 in annual maintenance costs.



Options 1 and 2 however come with alignments set back from the river, which won’t include the more costly bank protection work stretching 300 feet into the river.



The flooded property owners of Chilliwack have stated they would like to see the city go with the $5.1 million option with full bank protection.



The armoured berm, called “an orphan dike” by some, was built close to the river with federal and provincial money in 1997, and never had any funding earmarked to maintain it, nor did it permit the city to gain access. But when it failed, it led to “overbank flood flows” which hit the unprotected floodplain, and impacted 15 local properties situated between the dike and the river.



Ballam Road resident John Van Den Brink lost his crop of 400 to 500 hazelnut trees when the berm failed.



“It’s been hard on us,” he told The Progress. “If it happens again, it will just wipe us out.”



A handful of the property owners are meeting with city officials on Thursday to urge them to look at another option: fixing the berm on an interim basis before next spring.



“We want them to put the gravel berm back the way it was, maybe just for the time being,” said Van Den Brink. “We walked the area last week, and we’ve never seen it this easy to rock.”



They are refusing to let it go.



“We can’t give up,” he said. “There are 370 acres back here with some of the best farmland we’ve got. It’s ludicrous that we don’t try and fix it, and down the road they will have to fix it sooner or later.”



City officials received word from Emergency Management BC that no provincial money would be made available to protect farmland outside a protected diked area.



In fact funding would only be supported if there was “an imminent threat” to the east dike from the 2011 Freshet, and there is an expectation that costs would be shared with the municipality.



This latest report from council will now be forwarded Emergency Management BC, said Friesen, asking for a formal response from the province, and to see if funding will be made available for any of the latest options, and which conditions would apply.



Council and government reps have been participating in discussions as part of a working group formed after the berm failure, including property owners and farmers impacted by the overland flooding last summer.



“They say they’re trying but nothing is happening,” Van Den Brink said. “We have another two and a half months before the river will start coming up again and nothing has been done.”

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on February 02, 2012, 07:59:37 PM
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/panther-lounge/2012/01/conservation-groups-hail-decision-to-postpone-fraser-gravel-mining/
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: Bassonator on February 03, 2012, 12:41:24 AM
OMG I dont believe Im saying this....Keep up the good work Chris...... :)
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on February 03, 2012, 06:00:37 AM
OMG I dont believe Im saying this....Keep up the good work Chris...... :)
Thanks, nothing wrong with having different opinions on different subjects.
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on April 06, 2012, 07:34:26 AM
http://www.theprogress.com/news/146026585.html
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on April 12, 2012, 12:29:01 PM
http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1-/11413-saving-the-fraser-teaming-up-at-gravel-reach.html
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on July 03, 2013, 05:40:09 PM
Alberta Flood brings this back to the front again.
http://www.theprogress.com/news/214213771.html
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on July 03, 2013, 05:42:40 PM
New report digs deeper on effects of gravel mining in Fraser River; UBC professor says practice doesn't help prevent flooding

globeandmail.com
Sun Mar 24 2013, 11:00pm ET
Section: Other
Byline: MARK HUME

Gravel mining to reduce flood threats in the lower Fraser River has long been controversial because of the impact it has on fish habitat, with heavy equipment destroying spawning beds and refuge areas used by young salmon.

The provincial government has justified allowing contractors to "scalp" gravel bars by saying the practice lowers the river bed in areas prone to floods, arguing in effect that if you can save homes from being washed away, it is worth whatever collateral damage is done to salmon habitat.

But a new report by Michael Church, a world expert in geomorphology and hydrology, should give the government reason to rethink its safety-first strategy.

Mr. Church, a professor emeritus in the department of geology at the University of British Columbia, says rivers don't operate as simply as they appear to on the surface.

And mining the Fraser for gravel, he states in a paper being released this week, doesn't help prevent floods at all.

"It is claimed that gravel accumulation in the reach of the Fraser River between Laidlaw and Sumas Mountain is causing water levels to rise, hence increasing flood hazard in the reach," he writes. "Gravel certainly does accumulate in the reach. But the real concern is water level, and evidence indicates that channel alignment, not gravel accumulation is the main control of water level along the river."

Mr. Church writes that "scalping sediment from bar tops . has minimal effect on water conveyance and water levels."

But while cutting the tops off the bars doesn't reduce flooding, it does speed up the water flowing over the bars - and that is bad news for the small fish that rely on those areas for shelter during spring freshets.

"These [bars] are the 'escape' areas used by fish to avoid the high flood velocities of the main channel. The current method of sediment excavation reduces the area of escape terrain, while not significantly enhancing water conveyance," writes Mr. Church.

He says that some gravel removal might be beneficial, but in limited amounts in selected areas, where the hydrology of the river has been carefully studied. And he is concerned that the annual mining going on currently is taking out gravel faster than it can be replaced by new material washing downstream.

"The general rate of gravel accumulation is slow and does not justify regular gravel mining," he concludes.

In other words, Mr. Church has found that the quality of fish habitat is steadily being degraded in the lower Fraser by gravel mining - without improving flood controls.

That doesn't make much sense, says Mark Angelo, chair emeritus of the River Institute at the B.C. Institute of Technology.

"I think it's a really important study," said Mr. Angelo.

Mr. Angelo, one of the founders of an environmental initiative known as the Heart of the Fraser, said Mr. Church was commissioned to do the study to get an expert's opinion on the gravel-mining issue.

"We asked him to prepare this report because we wanted a scientific, objective analysis of the issues on the lower Fraser," said Mr. Angelo. "What he's telling us is that focusing on gravel extraction for flood control is too simplistic an approach. That's not the way to go."

He said a comprehensive management plan is needed for the lower Fraser, to ensure that existing habitat isn't further degraded.

"This river is a jewel. It's an Eden in our midst and we really need to do a better job of managing it," he said.

Mr. Angelo said his group will be circulating the report to all levels of government, hoping to end gravel mining in the Fraser.

Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on July 05, 2013, 08:20:58 AM
http://www.abbotsfordtoday.ca/john-les-flood-protection-and-the-gravel-lobby/
Title: Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
Post by: chris gadsden on July 24, 2013, 04:58:51 PM
http://www.geog.ubc.ca/fraserriver/