Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: "There are safer places to get gravel"  (Read 121738 times)

chris gadsden

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13878
Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
« Reply #271 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.”

chris gadsden

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13878
Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
« Reply #272 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.

troutbreath

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2908
  • I does Christy
Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
« Reply #273 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.....
Logged
another SLICE of dirty fish perhaps?

chris gadsden

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13878
Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
« Reply #274 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

chris gadsden

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13878
Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
« Reply #275 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.

chris gadsden

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13878
Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
« Reply #276 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]

chris gadsden

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13878
Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
« Reply #277 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

chris gadsden

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13878
Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
« Reply #278 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

chris gadsden

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13878
Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
« Reply #279 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.

chris gadsden

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13878
Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
« Reply #280 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.

chris gadsden

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13878
Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
« Reply #281 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.

skaha

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1043
Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
« Reply #282 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.
Logged

chris gadsden

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13878
Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
« Reply #283 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.

chris gadsden

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13878
Re: "There are safer places to get gravel"
« Reply #284 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
« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 10:03:13 AM by chris gadsden »
Logged