After the dramatic collapse of sockeye salmon stocks in the Fraser River last year, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans quickly identified the three “most likely” causes – including a mysterious disease that causes brain lesions in fish. Read more of Mark Hume's Globe & Mail article here

Story by Global TV for BC. A small group is rallying against an existing gravel mine in the Fraser Valley. View story

Article by Brian Lewis in The Province. "This appears to be pretty much an industry-driven initiative that's only going to be rubber-stamped by local politicians," says Kat Wahamaa, a Lake Errock resident. Read article

Extensive article by Tyee Bridge in BC Business.

Excerpt: "Gravel extraction in the Chilliwack area of the river has been going on by private aggregate companies for decades. Since 2004 the operations have increased in size and number, ostensibly to protect $6-billion worth of homes, businesses and public infrastructure in the Fraser Valley from a New Orleans-style flood – like the granddaddy Fraser flood of 1894 or the one that devastated the region in 1948. While private companies are still mining the gravel, their operations are now approved and conducted under the auspices of Emergency Management B.C. (EMBC), part of the provincial Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. But a growing number of biologists, local First Nations and river hydraulics experts – as well as sport fishermen like Kwak – question the official story of flood protection and worry that the program is really a means of subsidizing a local resource industry. By framing gravel mining as an “emergency” public safety work, say critics, the government is quashing public input and ecological review – and using up limited flood-protection funds."

Read article

Dr. Daniel Pauly of UBC's Fisheries Centre is revered as one of the world's top marine scientists. At the end of last year's disastrous season for Fraser River sockeye returns - which saw the collapse of these vital stocks from over 10 million predicted returns to just over a million - Dr. Pauly addressed a number of questions and theories surrounding the grave situation. Government officials and spokespeople for the salmon farming industry were quick to dismiss concerns about impacts from open net salmon farms on wild salmon migratory routes by shifting the blame to factors over which we have less control, like global warming. Here Dr. Pauly pokes holes in the climate change argument and urges a precautionary approach vis-à-vis all potential factors, especially those which we can easily control, like salmon farms, habitat destruction from logging, and over fishing. Dr. Pauly's words are important food for thought as the Cohen Commission Judicial Inquiry into the sockeye collapse gets underway. Four minutes.

Dr. Daniel Pauly of UBC's Fisheries Centre is revered as one of the world's top marine scientists. At the end of last year's disastrous season for Fraser River sockeye returns - which saw the collapse of these vital stocks from over 10 million predicted returns to just over a million - Dr. Pauly addressed a number of questions and theories surrounding the grave situation. Government officials and spokespeople for the salmon farming industry were quick to dismiss concerns about impacts from open net salmon farms on wild salmon migratory routes by shifting the blame to factors over which we have less control, like global warming. Here Dr. Pauly pokes holes in the climate change argument and urges a precautionary approach vis-à-vis all potential factors, especially those which we can easily control, like salmon farms, habitat destruction from logging, and over fishing. Dr. Pauly's words are important food for thought as the Cohen Commission Judicial Inquiry into the sockeye collapse gets underway. Four minutes.

Former DFO senior manager and biologist Otto Langer discusses the politics of Fraser gravel mining. Highlights from 2009 event in Chilliwack, hosted by the Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee.

BCIT Instructor and former provincial biologist Dr. Marvin Rosenau uses government documents and statements from respected hydrologists to poke holes in the Campbell Government's Fraser River gravel mining program. 5 min of watching this video will leave you with little doubt as to what's really going on. Highlights from 2009 Chilliwack event hosted by the Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee.

• Fraser River Gravel Rush: Ex-Minister's Relative Among Those Who Benefit From Ecologically Destructive Mining Program
  

• Four short videos with experts
  

• A Historic Review of Gravel Mining in the Lower Fraser River and the Protection of Critical Associated Fish Habitats
  

Fraser River Gravel Rush: Ex-Minister's Relative Among Those Who Benefit From Ecologically Destructive Mining Program

By Damien Gillis
February 22, 2010

It's mid-February in the Lower Mainland, which means an annual tradition is beginning anew. Large pilings are being driven into precious river beds, while industrial trucks and backhoes make their pilgrimage to the Lower Fraser River Gravel Reach, a series of ecologically rich gravel bars between Hope and Mission. This year's targets are Little Big Bar, Gill Bar, and Hamilton Bar.

By the end of March, the machines will be gone, along with over 30,000 truckloads (close to 350,000 cubic metres) of precious aggregate for the construction industry - just before the mighty spring freshet temporarily washes over all evidence of the destruction they leave behind. In this late-winter rite - now in the sixth year of a 5-year term - politicians will again claim it's all to protect the people of the Fraser Valley from flood risks, while a growing legion of top aquatic scientists and committed conservation groups counter with their steadfast refrain: that the Campbell Government's Fraser River gravel mining program is essentially a scam, with disastrous long-term consequences for fish.

The bars of the Fraser River Gravel Reach serve as critical spawning and rearing habitat for various species of wild salmon, endangered sturgeon, and other important species. A similar mining program took place in the 1990's, albeit it at a much smaller scale, but concerns over ecological impacts led to a federal and provincial moratorium on the practice. That is, until 2004, when Victoria minted a new 5-year deal with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) to restart mining - this time at astronomical volumes. In all, 2.3 million cubic metres were to be mined throughout the agreement (which ran out last year, but has been extended for another year without public consultation, while the two governments reportedly work sub-rosa on a new 10-year extension plan).

All for Flood Protection?

There was one big catch to the 2004 deal: all future gravel mining had to be for flood-risk-reduction purposes. This new rationale for removing the gravel - namely lowering the river bottom to increase the floodway capacity - provided an effective way around the moratorium; the media and public, justifiably concerned about flood risks in the Valley, bought the story hook, line and sinker. Even the astute Province columnist Brian Lewis ran with the flood-prevention story, writing in 2008: "To sweeten the pot, Victoria is waiving collection of the $1-per-cubic-metre gravel royalty. It's certainly gratifying to see common sense prevail. While fish are important, so are people."

There are just three problems with this narrative:

1. The best available science and engineering makes a mockery of the contention that this gravel mining will help reduce flood risks in any significant way. There is little evidence that inordinate amounts of gravel are piling up between the dykes and causing a flood risk - or that removing it will make more than a tiny dent in the flood profile in this part of the Fraser. Simply building up the dykes would provide far greater safety benefits for a much lower cost - financially and ecologically.

2. Gravel, a.k.a. aggregate, is a valuable commodity - the primary ingredient in both concrete and asphalt - yet it is being given away at significant taxpayer expense to local construction and concrete companies. It turns out that the president of Jakes Construction Ltd., that has handled much of the infrastructure building and gravel mining at taxpayers' expense, is the uncle of the of daughter of BC Liberal MLA for Chilliwack-Sumas, John Les, who oversaw the gravel mining program as Solicitor General (more on that later).

3. The ecological impacts of the extractions on already-struggling salmon and sturgeon have been severe - including the killing of up to 2.3 million pink salmon at Big Bar in 2006.

The evidence against the official flood protection story is overwhelming. Even the independent engineering consultant hired by DFO, Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, showed that for a hypothetical removal of 2.8 million cubic meters of gravel from the areas in question (22% more than the amount that had been agreed to over the past five years), we could only expect to see a maximum reduction in the river level of 2-4 inches! And that is just in the local area of the extractions. Further down river, closer to population centres in the Valley, the consultant determined the flood protection benefits would be utterly insignificant. The report stated quite simply: "It does not appear that large-scale gravel removals from the Gravel Reach of the Fraser River are effective in lowering the flood profile." Other experienced scientists in academia and government have come to the same conclusion over and over again:

• UBC's Dr. Robert Millar, a highly respected hydraulic engineer, wrote in 2008 to the Alouette River Management Society, "Individual gravel removal operations [in the Gravel Reach] will have negligible or insignificant effects on the flood profile."

• Dr. Peter Ward, another venerable hydrologist from UBC questioned the rationale for mining at one of the 2008 gravel bar sites: "As a hydrology engineer who's been involved with matters concerning Fraser River flooding for many years I am surprised about why this project at Spring Bar could possibly be justified on the basis of flood control. Looks as though someone proceeded with the construction work without getting or listening to competent advice."

• Even technical scientists at the BC Ministry of Environment and DFO have been internally critical of the program, but overruled by their managers. Here is then-Regional Director for DFO, Dr. John C. Davis in a 2003 memo to Deputy Minister Larry Murray: "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."

Yet despite all the compelling evidence to the contrary, the provincial agency responsible for routine flood protection and removal of gravel in and about streams - the Water Stewardship Division of the BC Ministry of Environment - continues with the mantra that this initiative is all about flood protection.

The Shock Doctrine as Flood

The psychological games being deployed by provincial politicians and key federal bureaucrats to advance this program closely resemble those described in renowned Canadian author Naomi Klein's book, The Shock Doctrine. The formula is simple: Scare people with the threat of floods and consequent loss of their homes, then offer them a solution - even if it's a bogus one. Chances are, the public will go along with it if they are frightened enough.

Eastern Fraser Valley MLA and former Solicitor General John Les has been a central cog in the well-oiled Fraser gravel fear machine, declaring in 2007, in support of the mining program: "We don't want to be playing Russian Roulette with the safety of citizens in the Fraser Valley and Lower Mainland." Thankfully, not everyone has bought this gravel mining cover story. A few reporters like Mark Hume at the Globe & Mail and The Vancouver Sun's Larry Pynn have been raising tough questions for a number of years now.

And groups such as the Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee - a broad coalition that includes organizations like the BC Wildlife Federation, Fraser Valley Salmon Society, and David Suzuki Foundation - have gone to great lengths to gather the available science and demonstrate to the public that there is something very fishy about this whole program.

This is far from the only group that has registered concerns about the mining program. The Rick Hansen-led Fraser River Sturgeon Conservation Society has posed hard-hitting questions with regards to how this activity affects white sturgeon spawning and rearing habitat - and has received no satisfactory answers to their concerns. The Fraser River Coalition has also independently called for a cessation of these mining projects until common sense can be brought into the picture. The bureaucrats and politicians at both DFO and the Province have ignored these folks as well.

MLA John Les has been steadfast in defending the official cover story for the program, telling reporters in 2007: "Our sole motivation for removing gravel is flood protection." And yet, a 2008 television photo op at one of the gravel mining sites provided a telling lapse. Then-Solicitor General Les and fellow Chilliwack MLA and Environment Minister Barry Penner (another long-time cheerleader of the program) were speaking together to a camera from Global TV, as gravel trucks lumbered about in the background. Les deviated from the script for a moment, to the apparent consternation of his wingman.

Les: "It provides the material that they need today for concrete and asphalt..."

Penner (jumping in): "But that's not why we're taking the gravel out of the river."

Les: "No, no, no."

Penner: "It's for flood protection purposes."

Yeah. Right.

Speaking of John Les...

Not only has the province waived the old royalty fees for this valuable commodity - the BC taxpayer has been subsidizing its removal by fronting the money for both the building of infrastructure necessary for the removals, and for the gravel extraction work itself. For example, BC taxpayers paid almost a million dollars to build a bridge at Spring Bar to facilitate gravel extraction by Jakes Construction Ltd., whose president, Jake Klaassen is a relative of John Les (Jake is the uncle by marriage of Les' daughter; he is listed in Elections BC documents as the sole owner of the company, and in Corporate Registry documents as the company's president and sole director).

Most taxpayer funding for the gravel mining program comes through Emergency Management BC, a department of the Ministry of Public Safety, which Les headed as Solicitor General - that is, of course, until a scandal involving alleged improper removals from the Agricultural Land Reserve, that may have benefited Les and his family and associates, forced him from Cabinet in 2008. (An RCMP investigation into the issue is ongoing).

The Fraser River gravel mining program is a tangled web of government, industry, and First Nations connections, shrouded in opaque layers that make it difficult to see where taxpayers' money is coming from and going to. For example, we know from a 2006 quote for services from Jakes Construction Ltd. (then operating as Jakes Contracting) to the City of Chilliwack, that the company received $200,000 for infrastructure building and gravel removal at Big Bar. The document is signed by company president Klaassen. The city's engineering department received three quarters of the funding from EMBC to relay to Jakes. But that's about all we know for sure.

Various individuals and organizations have tried on numerous occasions to obtain information about gravel mining contracts. When one individual requested tender documents regarding the 2006 Big Bar contract that Jakes Contracting received, a representative from EMBC responded that they did not have that information and directed the individual instead to the Cheam Indian Band. Requests in 2009 for contractual information regarding mining at Tranmer Bar and Harrison Bar were met with essentially the same redirection.

Why refer individuals curious about these contracts to a local aboriginal band? Generally these mining deals are set up as follows: the Province, through Emergency Management BC, provides taxpayer funding to the local aboriginal bands in whose traditional territories the gravel bars lie - such as the Cheam Band near Chilliwack, or the Seabird Island Band near Rosedale. The bands get monies to pay for infrastructure needed to mine the gravel. It also appears that bands receive some royalties for the gravel itself, though the term "royalties" in this case may simply be a euphemism for a fee-simple trade of gravel for cash. The bands in turn hire private companies - such as Jakes Construction and Lehigh Gravel - to build the bridges and roads and perform the gravel mining. The one exception to this appears to be Link's Contracting and Aggregate Supplies Ltd. (formerly Mar-Link Custom Crushing Ltd.), operating as K & L Contracting, whose sole director, Lincoln Douglas, is related to several members of the Cheam Band - including former elected chiefs; whether [and how] Link's/K & L receives its contracts through the Cheam Band, or directly from the Province, is unclear. K & L is performing work at two of this year's extraction sites - Little Big Bar and Gill Bar.

This convoluted structure ensures that key questions like how the contracts are vetted, who gets the money, and who ends up owning the gravel remain a complete mystery in most cases. The trouble is, because the bands aren't subject to the same Freedom of Information requirements as the Government, it makes it virtually impossible to know who is getting paid what, and whether open and fair tender processes are occurring for the work. We should not forget that this gravel is a crown asset, owned by Emergency Management BC (because it is the original proponent of the gravel removal), and that the bulk of funds for the entire extraction process come from the Province's tax coffers.

Individuals and companies related to two of the primary beneficiaries of gravel mining-related contracts - Jakes Construction Ltd. (then doing business as Jakes Contracting) and Lehigh Gravel (through two related companies, Lehigh Northwest Materials Ltd. and Lehigh Northwest Cement Limited) have also made significant financial contributions to the BC Liberal Party during the gravel program, totalling close to $100,000.

• Lehigh Northwest Materials Ltd. and Lehigh Northwest Cement Limited together contributed $79,346 to the BC Liberal Party from 2005-2009

• 456255 B.C. LTD. (d.b.a. Jakes Contracting) contributed $3,500 from 2005-2007. Jake Klaassen is listed with Elections BC as the company's sole owner.

• Chilliwack Cattle Sales Ltd., a company belonging to the Kooyman family - which both Jake Klaassen and John Les' daughter Sharon married into - contributed $9,050 to the BC Liberal Party from 2005-2009

• Other individual members of the Kooyman family and companies owned by the Kooymans contributed $4,150 to BC Liberal Party and $400 to the BC NDP from 2005-2009

What About the Fish?

Even more appalling than the taxpayer rip-off is the amount habitat on the river bottom that has been disturbed. According to the most recent studies by fluvial geomorphologists (river geographers) on average only 30,000 cubic meters of gravel moves down the Fraser under the Agassiz-Rosedale Bridge each year. Located at the heart of the Fraser gravel mining area, the annual gravel flow at this spot is a good indicator of how fast gravel is building up in the Reach. What this analysis also tells us is that, based on the 2.3 million cubic meters of planned extractions under the current program, we are essentially allowing the removal of 70 years worth of natural gravel inputs in just 5-6 years! Far from gravel aggrading and raising flood risks, valuable fish habitat is being pillaged much faster than nature can replenish it.

The upshot is hundreds of hectares of key fish habitat have been harmfully altered in a very short period of time. Up to 2.3 million pink salmon eggs and alevins (larval salmon) were destroyed at Big Bar in 2006 (a Jakes Contracting project); in 2008 a number of pink salmon alevins were also killed at Spring Bar (another Jakes project) in order to access the mining site (DFO actually issued a permit allowing this!); and valuable spawning and rearing habitat for endangered sturgeon - at places like Popkum Bar, Tranmer Bar, Little Big Bar (all Jakes projects), and Harrison Bar (a Lehigh Gravel project) - has been ravaged by the program. Simply put, these serious ecological impacts are a grave price to pay for mere inches of flood reduction. And yet, another round of extractions is ploughing ahead this February and March at Gill Bar, Little Big Bar, and Hamilton Bar - the latter two locations thought to be likely sturgeon-spawning habitats.

DFO Not Doing its Job

The key protector of fish habitat, under the Canadian Constitution, is DFO. But in the past decade its managers have consistently failed to enforce the Fisheries Act, or even protect non-salmon species, despite their constitutional mandate to do so. The Rafferty-Alameda Dam and Oldman River Dam court decisions made it unequivocally clear that the buck stopped at the federal government when it came to protecting fish habitat - which includes salmon, white sturgeon, and all other fish species. But DFO managers continue to publicly defend the gravel program, and point their fingers at the BC Environment Ministry as the managers responsible for sturgeon. In 2008, the Chilliwack Progress reported that, according to DFO's local area director, Mel Kotyk, "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."

That's not what the federal Auditor-General's office found in a scathing 2009 report that took DFO to task on the gravel file. The report found that DFO "cannot demonstrate" that fish habitat is being adequately protected. Larry Pynn wrote in the Vancouver Sun, "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."

Of course, John Les begs to differ, criticizing in 2008 the petition from leading environmental groups and individuals (including eminent UBC fisheries scientist Dr. Daniel Pauly, and Order of Canada recipients Mark Angelo and Vicky Husband) that prompted the federal Auditor-General's investigation. Les said at the time he was "disappointed in the continued denial that 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."

Not to keep beating up on the guy, but Les apparently also pressured DFO to get with the gravel program. In a 2006 Tyee article, Christopher Pollon wrote:

An internal DFO memorandum acquired through the 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."

Ten months later, DFO approved the program.

Fraser Gravel, the Olympics & Gateway

While taxpayer-funded gravel mining giveaways to companies like Jakes Construction merit more scrutiny beyond these pages, we shouldn't lose sight of the big picture. It is the insatiable appetite for concrete and asphalt throughout the Lower Mainland that is at the root of this gravel program. While Fraser River gravel accounts for less than a quarter of the region's aggregate supply, its close proximity to many of the projects that require the material make it a highly valued source. In the same 2006 Tyee article, Christopher Pollon rightly connected the dots between the Fraser gravel program and several large-scale Campbell Government industrial projects in the region - namely the Gateway Highway Program and, yes, the Olympics.

Pollon quoted then-director of the six billion dollar highway mega-program, Mike Proudfoot: "We've got enormous gravel demand on the horizon for the Gateway Project and other public building priorities moving forward... We will be looking for those materials from the Fraser, where it can be [mined] to benefit flood control."

Gateway also threatens fish habitat by potentially destroying a vital component of the Fraser ecosystem, Burns Bog, with the South Fraser Perimeter Road. For this reason, the planned route was severely criticized by both Environment Canada and a panel of local scientists charged with overseeing and protecting the bog's conservation lands.

The Olympics is another massive infrastructure program that has boosted gravel demand. Roughly 400,000 tonnes of aggregate were required for the Olympic-driven Canada Line alone. Add to that the Sea to Sky Highway expansion, the Convention Centre, Athletes' Village, and dozens of other new venues - and at least some of the responsibility for those millions of dead salmon can be laid at the doorstep of the Games - and the larger promotion throughout the region of economic growth at any cost.

What Can Citizens Do?

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) is the legislation responsible for ensuring that environmental assessments of proposed industrial projects in or around streams are conducted when they potentially threaten fish habitat. CEAA has three levels of review. Level 3 means a full Public Panel review and comprehensive environmental study of the proposed project. Level 2 has no panel review, but requires the comprehensive study. Remarkably, despite the acknowledgment by all of the government agencies involved - both at the provincial and federal levels - that these are important aquatic habitats, and that hundreds of hectares and millions of cubic metres of gravel are to be removed, these projects are only being subjected to a Level 1 Environmental Screening process!

That means no public consultations. No comprehensive review. No examination of the cumulative effects of all three extractions occurring this year, the years of impacts that have preceded them, or those being planned for the future. Just a basic environmental screening. And that's outrageous given the dimensions of this program. Endangered white sturgeon. Collapsed Chinook and sockeye salmon runs. Millions of dead pink salmon. Disappeared eulachon. And, again, the most basic requirement of the agreement, flood reduction, well... still doesn't hold water.

Citizens can get involved in the issue by writing to both the federal DFO (also known as Fisheries and Oceans Canada today) and the BC Ministry of Environment to demand genuine public involvement in the issue, and that proper comprehensive, cumulative environmental studies be undertaken. The public needs to be involved in the process - especially as the governments of BC and Canada reportedly work behind closed doors on a ten-year extension to the controversial program. And if the scientific and engineering facts supporting this program don't bear it out, then it should simply be scrapped. Now is no time to be taking unnecessary risks with our wild salmon and sturgeon.

As the Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee has consistently emphasized, there may be some reasonable gravel extraction opportunities in the Fraser watershed - places where excess gravel recruitment is naturally occurring and where its removal can be done in a sensible way that avoids significant ecological impacts. But this current program unequivocally meets none of those criteria.

In other words, (real) flood reduction is important - but so are fish and taxpayers' money.

Next week, watch for a video report from The Common Sense Canadian's recent visit to the Gill Bar and Little Big Bar Mining sites.

Four short videos with experts

<

A Historic Review of Gravel Mining in the Lower Fraser River and the Protection of Critical Associated Fish Habitats

By Otto E. Langer MSc - Fisheries Biologist

The Ecological-Geomorphological Setting

The Fraser River has flowed past Hope and into the Pacific Ocean for about 100 Million years. The Fraser Canyon is a rift valley and over millions of years the basin became much larger as the river cut into the bedrock and entrained upstream watersheds and directed their flows into the Pacific Ocean. The last Ice Age filled the Fraser Canyon with glacial sediments and the river has been eroding away those sediments to this very day. Consequently, most of the gravel/sediment beds of the Lower Fraser developed most since the last Ice Age (i.e., from 10,000 years ago to the present time).

The section of a rapidly flowing river that has reduced velocities or energy will deposit larger sediments such as gravel. Usually the river is wider and develops into a braided series of channels, bars and islands like what we see in the Agassiz-to-Chilliwack "Gravel Reach" of the of the Lower Fraser River. This type of habitat is ideal for wildlife and essential for many fish species including eulachons, sturgeon and several species of salmon. Clean gravel is essential for salmonid spawning. By contrast, the reaches of the Fraser downstream of the gravel reach are usually composed of sand, silts and clay particles.

Once this type of a braided river gravel reach has been altered by humans for land development, gravel mining, or flood control purposes, these high habitat values most often disappear. The gravel reach of the Lower Fraser has been relatively undisturbed by man's activities, but it now faces a great threat by organized government efforts to extract large amounts of gravel for various purposes from navigation to aggregate mining to flood risk reduction.

Historic Overview

During the past century people of the Fraser Valley have often extracted the clean gravels of many of our salmon spawning streams as a local source of cheap gravel for building roads and making concrete for construction projects. These practices have done great harm to many streams and, in the instance of the Coquitlam River, destroyed much of the river and drove a healthy run of pink salmon into extinction. Some 40 years ago construction workers in the Coquitlam area complained that concrete made from Coquitlam gravels gave off a rotten smell due to the large amounts of salmon eggs in the concrete. Despite the totally non-sustainable uses of stream gravel, the Province did absolutely nothing to outlaw the practice. The removal of gravel from streams was common throughout BC and was especially common wherever a logging road was being built.

The Federal Fisheries Act did not have habitat protection provisions in it, so in the late 1960s DFO had Ottawa issue a regulation under the Fisheries Act called the B.C. Gravel Removal Order. The Order listed streams for special protection and of course included the Fraser, Coquitlam and Alouette Rivers and many other streams that were being mined of their essential salmonid spawning gravels. This order did control the situation and by 1976 a habitat protection section was added to the Fisheries Act that allowed the Order to be repealed as redundant legislation.

In addition to gravel removal, some streams suffered great impacts from gravel channelizing - i.e., the dredging of gravel and the movement of it from one area to another so as to allow navigation; or in the belief that channelizing the gravel beds would lower the local flood risk. Evidence of that channelizing of river gravel bars in such streams as the South Thompson and Harrison Rivers can been still seen decades later.

The lower reaches of the Fraser River were also taken advantage of for their giant annual supply of sand and that was dredged out of the river by the millions of cubic meters each year as a cheap source of sand for land filling and other construction projects. Some also argued that sand dredging had to take place to reduce the flood hazard to flood plain communities like Richmond. However, those calling for dredging for flood control purposes rarely related to the fact that unlimited dredging did not lower the level of the Pacific Ocean at high tide in the estuary.

Recent History

During the 1970-1990s it was obvious that some companies looked to the Lower Fraser River gravel reach (Hope to Chilliwack) as a gravel pit and some companies established gravel work yards on the banks of the Fraser River. Mining was sometimes done directly where salmon were spawning at the time. In the late 1980's and 1990's DFO pushed for a moratorium on gravel mining until an overall management plan was formulated between all parties.

DFO had a series of conflicts with the Cheam Indian Band which claimed the gravel beds beside their reservation and began the commercial mining and sale of gravel. This gave rise to a number of criminal charges against the band but nothing was resolved and DFO got a public relations black eye from the conflict. It was determined by political types that the agency had to cooperate with the bands and that one way to do that was to allow them to remove gravel from the river, thinking that more cooperative relationships would follow. A DFO internal briefing note even recommended that staff should make arrangements to allow the Cheam Band to earn $40,000 in profit a year from gravel sales. Despite this, DFO has lived in denial of their actions and have pretended to protect habitat while they promoted gravel mining at the same time.

Dr. Slaymaker of UBC (Westwater Reserch Centre) noted in a1991 published study:

Dredging and gravel mining has averaged about about 120,000m³ per year since 1973 and reached 230,000m³ in 1982 (Kellerhals, 1985). This is potentially a problem of sustainability in that the best estimates suggest that only 150,000m³ of gravel are added from upstream each year. The annual deficit of sediment can affect the fluvial morphology of the river in such a way that the long-term period of rapid lateral bank erosion may be initiated, posing a threat to flood plan residents in the immediate vicinity.

Present Situation

Federal and Provincial Liberal party hopefuls immediately began a campaign against this moratorium and issued an email to members outlining their concern that the gravel was needed for the economy and that jobs had been lost and it was necessary to get DFO off their backs. In 2002 the Provincial Liberal MLA hopefuls in the Chilliwack area campaigned on ending the moratorium.

Once these MLA hopefuls were elected and the Liberal government was formed in Victoria, the moratorium ended and the Province negotiated a five year gravel removal agreement with DFO. It allowed for the annual removal of giant quantities of gravel, i.e., 420,000 to 500,000 m³ a year. This gave rise to many conflicts. In November 2005 I sent a letter to the DFO Minister Reagan predicting that this program would cause catastrophic habitat problems. By March 2006 a large approved extraction at Big Bar allowed the Band and the City of Chilliwack to build a causeway across an important spawning side channel of the river and caused the death of over 2.3 million juvenile salmon.

DFO staff attempted to mislead the public about the reasons for the fish kill, refusing to acknowledge that the operation they had approved was to blame. The gravel removal operation that they authorized was not monitored properly and DFO did not stop the works once it was realized that a disaster was in the making. As a consequence of this tragedy, citizens formed the Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee to ensure that DFO and the province showed greater diligence in such projects and, above all, plan such projects in a transparent manner with full public input.

After this project, the Province (Emergency Management BC) determined that they would take over the future gravel removal projects under the slogan of "flood risk reduction" and would fund gravel removal with public monies. Since then about 1.5 Million cubic meters of gravel have been removed and government has largely ignored or denied the incremental loss of fish habitat in mined areas and any associated post impact areas due to erosion, channel change, etc. For some reason DFO has determined that the Province is immune from their habitat policy of "no net loss" and have not required the Province to build compensation habitat for these public safety projects. Other Provincial agencies like Highways or BC Hydro are not exempted from this policy. A recent DFO director said compensation habitat was not necessary in that the impacts only last three years at each site. Recently another DFO spokesperson admitted that there has been a cumulative impact but said DFO did not know how to address the compensation issue.

Summary and Conclusion

Many international studies over many years have shown that one of the most critical and essential habitats of salmon are the gravel bottomed braided sections of our rivers - whether they are in Siberia or in the Fraser Basin. The gravel reach of the Lower Fraser between Wahleach Creek and Chilliwack is such a fish habitat area and it is of special importance to spawning and rearing needs of several species of salmon, white sturgeon, eulachons, and many other species of fish.

This section of the Fraser has been altered over the years but due to its robust nature has retained most of the ecological attributes that make it excellent habitat. However, there is now a concerted program by the Provincial Government to straighten (train) the river and increase river flow velocities - so as to allegedly reduce flood risks to that section of the Fraser Valley floodplain. Of special concern to conservation groups is the fact that the provincial and federal governments have shown no will to openly consult with the public on these issues nor conduct comprehensive environmental reviews which are required by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Such gravel removal programs, once initiated, have been hard to contain and once a river has been subjected to years of major river works, it may never recover from the dredging, dyking and the loss of its riparian habitats. The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans has a mandate to protect these habitats and ensure a no net loss of such habitat productivity. DFO's efforts to protect this type of habitat have been less than obvious as they have ignored cumulative impacts and exempted such gravel mining programs from their policy of "no net loss."