Print

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

[tingirl]

If you haven't checked it out yet, go to the article "BC's aquatic habitat rape at Spring Bar" on the FWR blog (I think it's in fishy news). DFO has approved the mining of 400,000 cubic meters of gravel off of this bar. On one side of this bar there are a ton of pink redds and on the other side there are river-rearing sockeye (VERY RARE IN BC) and rearing juvenile chinook. All of these salmon will be wiped out if the mining isn't stopped (DFO already put 1.5 million dollars in to build the bridge over the river for the machines to start mining), notto mention many other species that live around there. GO CHECK OUT THE ARTICLE...It's a huge problem that needs to stop ASAP.

[chris gadsden]

Just a bit of correction it is the Province that has given at this time a bit over $500,000 to build the bridge but of course that cost could go higher. Apparently they are logging the cottonwoods off the bar as well now.

[woodscamper]

Yes Chris, you are correct. Two small cutblocks are being logged of their cottonwoods on Spring Bar by Scott Paper. The conifers are not being removed. Of course, the riparian area is being left intact and Scott Paper can actually go in and selectively log this area as well, but they are choosing not to log that area at all. The stand of trees that is being logged was planted by Scott Paper many many years ago, and is on a 26-year rotational harvest. It is a tree farm. They are by no means taking all the trees, actually a very small percentage of them are being taken. They go in to their tree farm and log another small area each time, then replant it, as they plan to do to the areas they log this time as well.

This logging project has absolutely nothing to do with the gravel removal project. They are completely seperate of each other.

[nosey]

   Damn I hate to be contraversal on this one but here goes, in th early 1970's  I lived at an old house at the sawmill that was directly across from Spring Bar as it's now known in about 1974  about 75% of that island was logged of it's cottonwood and replanted, in that short span of time they are now re-harvesting the wood that they planted. That's called a renewable resource and I for one see no problem with it.
  Ok now to the gravel, yesterday I stopped across the river from the gravel mine and while I was looking at the progress I realized the gravel they are taking off wasn't there 30 years ago, we used to run our boats right out there where the gravel trucks are running that was pretty well the main channel. The river has moved to the south side now and eaten a huge gravel bar that used to be directly across from the top end of the island and moved it to just upstream from the top of Herrling Island, go figure, the river is moving all that gravel around and it isn't doing habitat distruction.
  With the bridge they put in there appears to  be no siltation of either channel like the fiasco at Gill Bar last year and there is no digging or messing around below the water level like Steelhead Aggregates did in Chilliwack for years.
   Now tell me is it possible that the increased scrutiny and surveylance that Chris and others have put on these gravel removal operations actually forced this one to be enviormentally sound and well planned?
   Don't get me wrong I am not a proponant of people messing around in the river willy nilly but I've seen lots of areas that have been mined off over the years and if you go look at them now you can't even tell the difference. The highway from the overpass in Bridal Falls to the Herlling Island turnoff was all built with gravel removed from the powerhouse side channel and i still see people fishing for cutthroat there every time I go to Chilliwack, we were actually using EAC's gravel removal road to go down to the booming grounds and fish cutties  right while the removal was going on, if Chris asks the master he'll remember it plainly, he was using the road to go down and catch brood stock for the hatchery.
   The possibilty is there that if these gravel removal projects are made accountable they can remove gravel from some areas and still remain damage free if the enviormental watchdogs continue to hold there collective noses to the grindstone.

[chris gadsden]

Thanks for the information, I guess they are making good use of the bridge to bring out the cottonwod  logs.

Nosey, all I can say is read the power point and come to your own conclusion if you think it should be allowed or not.

[Rodney]

In case people couldn't find the presentation that this thread is referring to, please see:

http://fishingwithrod.wordpress.com/2008/02/10/bcs-aquatic-habitat-rape-at-spring-bar/

[nosey]

    I was wrong, sorry. Although now I'll dig myself a little deeper hole by saying that the science in the power point presentation is almost as misleading as the governments assertions about the whole project. First we'll get to the government assertion that the gravel buildup is leading to higher water levels, that's an absolute lie, both the island below the gravel removal and the island up against the south shore directly across from the gravel removal have historically been barely above water level in high water if the water levels were any higher than they have been in the past both those islands would be wiped out which has not happened.
   Now to the misleading parts of the power point presentation, first of all comparing the Fraser River to that scrawny little artificial spawning channel at Weaver Creek is just ludicrous why even mention it Weaver Creek is basically a open air fish hatchery highly concentrated perfectly groomed spawning beds and with a water flow thats a spit in the ocean compared to the Fraser. Now to the next point, there is absolutely no shortage of salmon rearing habitat in the Fraser River there is a shortage of juvenile salmon presently available to fill the habitat that is now there, the Fraser River could support ten times the amount of juvenile salmon than those that are now returning from the spawning bed the cobble they are referring to in their scientific reports is not rare or endangered in the river whatsoever and to imply that migrating juvenile salmon will die or be in any way impaired because of the removal of that gravel is sneaky misleading and trying to prove a point by sensationalism. If they can't stop at that gravel bar to grow up on their migration they will find another they were not born there and are not genetically programed to certain areas To futher prove this point have a look at the seine net they were using in the photos to catch the juveniles they used in the study, that is at the head of the Seabird channel and not 150 meters away from where the gravel mining operation finished up last year if there was damage to the little fish you'd think they'd be further away from such recent operations.
   The reason they shouldn't be mining out there is because of the pink redds, it's a spawning grounds, get the hell off of it plain and simple but keep the rhetoric and BS down it'll just destroy your credibility.

[bentrod]

One thing I have not read is any impact to the fish by pile driving.  If they're pounding steel in the water deeper than 10 to 15', the sound pressure will most likely decimate anything up and down stream which is unobstructed by an island or bend in the river.  I'd also be interested in reviewing a report on what's going to happen to the river down stream, now that the hydrodynamics are being altered.  They're probably not wanting to publish this so they can do another emergency project in another couple years. 

[woodscamper]

The sound impacts of the pile driving were tested as that was of course a concern. I can't recall the exact numbers off the top of my head (they will of course be published in the final report), however, the levels while driving was in progress, while testing right at the crossing itself, was approximately 1% of the levels that are allowable. I will double check on the numbers also just to make absolute sure. This is an extremely minor concern if anyone is worried about that.

[chris gadsden]

One thing I have not read is any impact to the fish by pile driving.  If they're pounding steel in the water deeper than 10 to 15', the sound pressure will most likely decimate anything up and down stream which is unobstructed by an island or bend in the river.  I'd also be interested in reviewing a report on what's going to happen to the river down stream, now that the hydrodynamics are being altered.  They're probably not wanting to publish this so they can do another emergency project in another couple years. 

Good points. Some people are saying some previous gravel extraction projects caused more water going down Minto Channel that then caused the erosion problems that occurred at Island 22. Of course saying that all rivers have a mind of their own and are difficult to control during periods of high flow and during freshets as it moves gravel in different directions, all the time.

Many people that know the Fraser River well and see how wide and immense it is in the Lower Gravel Reach realize by digging out a few areas will prevent a flood is beyond me, its just too big an area to try and do so. For example at the Spring Bar site this is just a small dot of the river bed, the river then flows into the hole left after 400,000 cubic metres and how much water is that, not much I say.

The bottom line here people is it is just for the gravel, thats why it is happening, at the expense of fish habitat. It is a well known fact that gravel extraction in any river is not a good thing at all for fish stocks. You do some research on this and you will find it repeated time after time. You will notice that gravel extraction is mentioned along with fish habitat loss when the Outdoor Council of BC publish their top 10 endangered rivers list each year.

Google OC of BC to read the list and why they are in the top 10.

I by no means are an authority on all aspects of this subject like many others but when I read and hear from professional people at meetings I have attended I draw my conclusions. These professional  have studied this for many years and do know the science that goes with it. That certainly tells me something.

I hope others continue to contribute their thoughs as well, to this complex issue.

[bentrod]

most likely the allowed peak dB threshold for driving pile were set somewhere between 180 and 200 dB.  I'd have a really hard time believing that pile could be driven in or even vibed in under any circumstances and only generate 18 to 20 dB.  I have been wrong before, but 18 to 20dB is whisper quiet.  Someone is pulling a Clemens on us.   

[chris gadsden]

most likely the allowed peak dB threshold for driving pile were set somewhere between 180 and 200 dB.  I'd have a really hard time believing that pile could be driven in or even vibed in under any circumstances and only generate 18 to 20 dB.  I have been wrong before, but 18 to 20dB is whisper quiet.  Someone is pulling a Clemens on us.   

You have that right, lots of Clemens going on with this whole project to date. Gag orders have been issued which is unfortunate in a democratic society. Hats off to the many working on this and giving so freely of their time.

[firstlight]

After hearing about this debauchery i sent out a few emails to some fisheries people and politicians.
Havent had one response from any of them.
Democratic society my my friend.

[CustomRetrieval]

most likely the allowed peak dB threshold for driving pile were set somewhere between 180 and 200 dB.  I'd have a really hard time believing that pile could be driven in or even vibed in under any circumstances and only generate 18 to 20 dB.  I have been wrong before, but 18 to 20dB is whisper quiet.  Someone is pulling a Clemens on us.   

You have that right, lots of Clemens going on with this whole project to date. Gag orders have been issued which is unfortunate in a democratic society. Hats off to the many working on this and giving so freely of their time.

without knowing what the actual data is, this is an premature conclusion. The dB scale is a log scale, if i recall correctly a 180 dB difference is something like a HUGE difference in sound pressure.  A power (ie. sound pressure) that is 1% of another power (ie. the threshold) would be 20 dB lower.  Woodscamper didn't specify what that 1% was..... power or dB

not saying that I support whats going on here or anything, but misrenpresentation of facts does no one any good.

[chris gadsden]

After hearing about this debauchery i sent out a few emails to some fisheries people and politicians.
Havent had one response from any of them.
Democratic society my ***.

Good on you. Let us know if you get a response from them.