Print

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

[Rodney]

Below is a letter by Otto Langer to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans regarding gravel removal in the Lower Fraser River.

Hon. Geoff Regan MP
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
Parliament Buildings
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
                        

Otto E. Langer R.P. Bio

November 13, 2005

Dear Mr. Minister:

Re: Gravel Removal in the Lower Fraser River.

I worked for DFO from 1969 to 2001. I left DFO to take an early retirement in 2001 because it was obvious that DFO was constantly hiring and promoting new managers that were willing to make technical and scientific considerations subservient to political needs of the day. Also DFO has lost its vision of a precautionary approach to conservation and is now trying to do a bit of everything with ever shrinking resources. Unfortunately this has been at the expense of environmental protection and the conservation of Canada’s fisheries resources.

DFO staff has become totally politicized and have been demoralized for the past several years. Despite the various DFO slogans of excellence in science, science based decisions and science based risk analyses, much of it is often window dressing and many decisions are now made to protect the economy and not fish habitat. This ranges from the removal of gravel in the Lower Fraser River to salmon farming along the BC coast to DFO’s new approach to protect habitat. I will elaborate on how DFO’s historic struggle to protect key spawning gravel habitat in B.C. has been undermined by ignoring the best available science of the day and a lack of will to protect what should belong to future generations..

As head of DFO Habitat Management in the late 1980s I pushed for a moratorium on gravel removal in the Lower Fraser River (LFR) where it was clearly in conflict with the protection of the salmon resource. Despite being poorly funded we issued contracts and conducted studies to document salmon spawning grounds and gravel recruitment. It was our plan to only allow gravel removal if it could be removed where fish do not use it, where it is renewed annually or where accumulations cause proven flood risks. It must be appreciated that when over a million people chose to live on the Fraser River flood plain, they have assumed some flood risk.

The moratorium took hold and studies were done over the years. Gravel removal interests put much pressure on government to open up the river to gravel removal usually under the guise of flood control needs despite the fact that the river flows have been declining over the past two decades. In 2000 a federal and provincial Liberal organizer contacted me in writing for my comments on how they could challenge DFO’s unrealistic concerns related to habitat protection in the LFR. I advised them that the controversy related to gravel removal in the Fraser River was more of an issue driven by political and economic concerns and less of a flood control problem.  Despite that the Victoria and Ottawa Liberal governments succeeded in lifting the moratorium against the best scientific advice of their staff and that of outside experts such as Dr. Church of UBC. DFO and the Province ensured that an environmentally non-sustainable amount of gravel is now approved for removal from the Fraser River over the next several years.

Of the four permits issued last year, DFO staff have advised me that the North West Hydraulics Lab hydraulic model indicated that some flood control benefit could be achieved from one removal scheme, no flood control would be derived from two other removals and in the fourth case, the gravel removal could indeed add to the flood risk in the LFV.

As part of the Province’s role in this matter, they withdrew their expert (Dr. M. Rosenau) who had been working with DFO staff over many years to better understand and protect this gravel habitat base in the river. He was indeed told that he was not needed and transferred to UBC to work on unrelated issues with 18 months of termination salary. This muzzling or ‘disposal’ of gravel experts in the Province and later in DFO is very relevant how on how politics triumphs over science in DFO and the Province to the detriment of environmental conservation.

Why did DFO go against the best available science a well considered plan designed to properly control gravel removal from this essential salmon spawning, rearing and migratory area? Before you answer this question I have been advised that DFO staff were advised by the DFO local Area Director (J. Wild) for the Lower Fraser River that such Fraser River gravel habitat should no longer be seen to be essential or critical and therefore its removal would not be a significant issue. They were directed to approve permits or authorizations for the removal of gravel and support the DFO-BC government’s gravel removal plan over the next several years.

In addition to this, another DFO flip flop on gravel removal adds to our concern that non-scientific considerations get priority in DFO decision making. In about 1996, 1998 and again in 2000 the Cheam Band illegally harmed habitat and removed large commercial quantities of gravel from a sensitive LFV habitat area for commercial sale. DFO charged the Cheam for the 1996 and 1998 violations under the HADD provisions of the Fisheries Act. Due to DFO’s less than good handling of the cases they were both lost in court. As Chief of DFO Habitat Planning I was called in to investigate and mediate the 2000 removal and suggested how the unapproved gravel removal operation could be completed to possibly improve habitat values. It was a man made island of gravel with low habitat values but with natural riparian habitat on its edge. The work was completed as outlined and no charges were laid. However, in this case a man made island of gravel was partially removed and that was an exception to natural habitat that is found in this area. This gravel removal operation could not be repeated in other areas without harming fish habitat. However it must be noted that the Cheam significantly damaged adjacent habitat when they removed this man made island. DFO and Justice did not have the resources to pursue the matter any further and another violation was ignored.

Despite this history an ATIP of June 23, 2004 shows that DFO acknowledged that they had been in conflict with the Cheam Band for 20 years and they were desperate to develop a partnership with the Band to gain cooperation and resolve the fishery and gravel removal conflicts in that part of the river. To implement that plan DFO asked Ottawa for $287,500 and a key part of that plan specifically stated “Facilitate a 2004 gravel removal opportunity for the community: excellent economic development benefit for the community ($40,000 profit for Band Council)”. In that the Band claims a very restricted part of the river, it is well known by DFO and other experts that this is an excellent fish habitat area. In the late 1990s I directed an independent mapping of habitat values in the LFV. That habitat sensitivity mapping study identified this river area as being of the highest value habitat.

Why would DFO develop a habitat classification system and have experts that have determined that this is valuable fish habitat and if harmfully altered it would be worthy of criminal charges. Then as part of a plan to develop good relationships with the Cheam Band, abandon conservation of that habitat and facilitate the harmful alteration of that habitat?

Despite that political compromise of fish habitat to reduce conflict and build a partnership, why did the Vancouver Sun run a front page story on August 18, 2005 titled “RCMP probe clash between natives and fisheries officers – Fraser River tension rise after DFO boat rammed and Cheam band ignores regulations”. Why after these generous habitat give away attempts by DFO to buy a partnership with the Cheam band do we still have organized conflict between the two groups?

When Judge Williams carried out a 2005 inquiry for DFO on Fraser River missing sockeye, the DFO C&P Director (Greg Savard), while under cross-examination, noted that habitat was not being harmed in this instance because the Chief of Habitat for DFO said it was not habitat. This is totally misleading and amounts to untruthful testimony in that it was always valuable habitat until the Director of the Lower Fraser River directed his staff to cooperate with government plans and designate that habitat as marginal  habitat. Also the DFO Director General (P. Sprout) while under oath became hostile when subjected to questions related to this matter and noted that DFO had to go in a new direction in that what  DFO had done in the past did not work. Despite this claim of a new way of doing business, why did DFO still have conflict with the Cheam in 2005? Does DFO not know that you have to balance stewardship with a good enforcement strategy?

Mr. Minister, it is time you and your staff got back to the basic conservation intent of the Fisheries Act and do your job in an open, competent and honest manner. When will you do that in terms of gravel removal in fish habitat areas of the Fraser River? What recent management has done in DFO is confuse the habitat managers on what they should stand for and they are being forced into misrepresenting the science of habitat and habitat protection for dubious purposes.

[Rodney]

It is very evident that this confusion will haunt habitat protection across Canada. Yesterday DFO staff advised me that the terrible precedent you allowed to be set in LFV gravel removal is now spreading across British Columbia and threatening essential gravel habitat other rivers. What your staff are now being forced to do amounts to allowing gravel to be removed subject to monitoring i.e. legal destruction of fish habitat subject to monitoring. This may have been acceptable in the 1960s and 1970s as they tried to get a protection system into place but what you have now allowed is a 40 year reversal in habitat conservation.

As a DFO biologist in the 1990’s we were often brow beaten to ensure Ottawa DFO only received good news and if something wasn’t working, we should bury the issue. In some cases we were asked to bury programs such as the $100M HCSP stewardship success stories so as to “not raise public expectations” (as directed by Director General D. Petrachenko 2000).

In other cases we were ordered to destroy certain documents before they got to the public. In 1996 we were told to burn our first review of DFO’s success in attempting to achieve a ‘no net loss’ of habitat in the Lower Fraser in that “the government must be seen to only publish good news” (Director A. Lill 1996).  A few years before that we were ordered to strip all of our files of any criticism of RDG P. Chamut’s cutting of the DFO lab services to downsize DFO staff and costs (~1989).

In about 1986 I was called into the Directors office (G. Jones) and told that Ottawa did not want to hear from me on sediment standards in that DFO Ottawa had determined we had to protect placer miners in the Yukon. Despite the fact that I had been an expert witness in about 80 Fishery Act pollution trials from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island on sediment issues, I was told the Department had declared me  “persona non-grata in sediment issues”. A year later I was asked to go to the Yukon and to rationalize the new watered down approach to support the infamous Fisheries Act Yukon Placer Authorization. I refused and was called into Director T. Gaudet’s office and told that it was my job to support the DFO position even if it was wrong. If I could not do that, I was told I should “ride into the sunset”.

Further I am advised that another no net loss study conducted by two new biologists that I hired to do this work in 1998 have been obstructed in publishing their work on the status of the DFO ‘no net loss’ successes across Canada. Why is this DFO muzzling of objective habitat work taking place in 2005 under your watch? Should you want more information on this matter you should investigate Director General Richard Wex in NHQ who seems to be taking a new lead in watering habitat protection needs and covering up the status of habitat in Canada. In fact Mr. Wex recently appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on DFO and was reprimanded by MP Stoffer for misrepresenting the status of habitat and DFO resources in Canada (see Hansard 2005). As with many directors hired to do this work, he has no habitat training and seems to lack any understanding of the needs of fish and the value of the fisheries resource to Canadians. His major role seems to be to make DFO and the Minister look good while staff, expertise, moral and staff effectiveness is totally undermined. One can only appreciate why a lawyer would be hired to do this job. This is absolutely shameful.

It is overly obvious that a sad decade has evolved in DFO habitat protection for salmon and other fish species of the West Coast and across Canada. As the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans you have a responsibility to change this culture that has developed over the past several years in your government. Will you seriously look into this matter and change the direction the agency and the conservation of fish habitat is headed in? I strongly believe that DFO has lost its moral right to conserve our fisheries resource and a diligent minister would order an official inquiry into this matter. A major DFO shakeup is necessary. We will never rehabilitate the fisheries resources of Canada until we first rehabilitate DFO.

DFO seems to slip into this ‘take no action’ mode about every 12 – 15 years. When DFO lost their direction in the late 1970s, the then Minister of Fisheries (Hon. John Fraser) listened to the public and publicly ordered his staff to be more diligent in protecting habitat. However, the public had to make a slide show, get it on the CBC National News and lay the first two successful private informant charges under the Fisheries Act in Canada. This embarrassment greatly improved the will of the Minister and staff to do their job and cleared the air of any political interference for many years. A lapse in diligence again became a real issue in about 1990 and to some large degree DFO has never fully recovered due to ever increasing political demands and increased job complexity that overwhelms available resources and diminishing expertise. Also continuous and often pointless re-organization in Ottawa and in Pacific Region greatly interferes with staff in doing their jobs.

In that we often have great difficulty in getting meaningful and timely responses to these inquiries as the fisheries resource is put under greater pressure by DFO action \ inaction, this letter has been copied to the Environmental Auditor General as a petition under OAG legislation for tracking of quality and timeliness of response. This is a very serious matter affecting all Canadians, our quality of life and future generations and of course those with no voice - our fish and the well being of our environment.

Sincerely yours,



Otto E. Langer R.P. Bio

Copy to: Paul Martin, Gordon Campbell, John Cummins, Peter Stoffer,  Marine Conservation Caucus, David Suzuki Foundation, Auditor’s General Office, Senate and House Committees on DFO, Vancouver Sun, Chilliwack Progress, CBC and other media.

[Big Steel]

Well, it took me a while to read all of that! I would like to say that it was a good read, but it just seems to reaffirm what many of us have feared for a long time.  If this is true, or even if a bit of it is true, then the DFO seems to have more problems than what we could see in the public, or that we could tell from the way that DFO was handling of the salmon stocks in the last few years!!

[BwiBwi]

Now we are beginning to confirm our suspision why under current DFO management we're missing fish, fish late coming back or worst case didn't even come back.

Look at the mess DFO is in. We should start to organize a public showing (posters, pamphlets, video clips,....) maybe in front of the legislative building in Victoria during turist season. To let people understand how the lower mainland salmon fishery, habitat has been poorly managed and how the first nation has disguised them as the nature stewardness people actually behave. (hopefully Chris and Rodney still have their footage)

[Nostro]

Wow! I can't believe what I just read!
Right or wrong, these allegations are very serious. I think this thread should be forwarded to the RCMP.

[allwaysfishin]

i agree 100% nostro

[DragonSpeed]

oh..... and another fine example of why anyone who votes liberal.... for ANY reason.... is an absolute moron.

Can we leave this kind of personal slagging based on political views OUT of the forum please?

[marmot]

Must.....prosecute......

[Sterling C]

oh..... and another fine example of why anyone who votes liberal.... for ANY reason.... is an absolute moron.

According to the letter these things first started happening in the late 80's, back when the Conservatives were still in power.

Very sad state of affairs indeed.