Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[chris gadsden]

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

 


 

[Morty]

Your efforts are appreciated Chris.

[chris gadsden]

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

[chris gadsden]

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

[chris gadsden]

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.

[Gaffer]

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.

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

[skaha]

--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.

[Nicole]

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

[Gaffer]

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

[Gaffer]

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

[chris gadsden]

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

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

[chris gadsden]

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

[chris gadsden]

Expanded story that ran today.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lpynn@vancouversun.com


 

[troutbreath]

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

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

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

[chris gadsden]

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

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

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

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