Fisheries Committee on June 6th, 2006

[Jim Wild]

Specifically, on consultants, before we had the multi-year agreement it was a bit awkward, because a regional district, for instance, would go to get their technical consultant and do a study, the first nation might get a technical assistant to do a study, and the department might do one, and you'd end up with three experts and three different opinions.

What we agreed to, with the help of the Fraser River Basin Council, was to go to one hydraulic model study. I think that's what you're getting at.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Yes, exactly.

[Jim Wild]

In each of the sites that we have chosen, they have done hydraulic analysis to determine the effect of removal of gravel. That was one we all agreed on, so you wouldn't have people disagreeing at the technical level. I think it was a good step forward.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Because at this juncture it seemed like it was very much a surprise. If the hydraulic study's estimates were off in factoring in the decline in the amount of water going through.... It just seemed that you were caught very much off guard as to how much the flow was limited by the construction of the causeway. You did what you thought you had to do, but it just seemed that the calculations or the estimations were significantly off from the outset, from my observation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

You have seven minutes, Mr. Roy.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Sprout, I am having a hard time understanding your explanation. What you are saying is that your methodology will include a description of the hydrological regime and a description of the life history of relevant fish species in the lower Fraser River.

You also say that, among other considerations, if sufficient data is available, you will undertake a hydraulic modeling to simulate river conditions, or water levels, at the Big Bar site.

Are you telling us that you gave the go-ahead to build a causeway without first having these data, before checking the hydrological regime and the life history of the relevant fish species at the time without having enough hydraulic modeling information?

You have just told us that you were surprised to see, after allowing the construction of the causeway, that the water level had dropped. When this type of infrastructure is built in British Columbia, do they not have culverts that are big enough to allow the water to flow through? I am having a hard time understanding your explanation.

As a precaution, one usually starts by checking to see if there is enough flowthrough and culverts are installed to minimize any effect on the river's flow.

To state it clearly, you allowed the construction of an infrastructure, in essence, a dam. There was very little chance that the river would continue to flow. That's what I cannot understand. I have to tell you that you have not managed to convince me. This means that the department either did a poor job, or did nothing at all, since the situation was improperly assessed at the outset.

You say that causeway removal began on March 11. You then said that, in any case, it was to be removed by mid-March. There is much difference between March 11 and March 15. You also said that the work was completed on March 3^rd.

When did the work begin?

[Paul Sprout]

You may not be surprised that I have a different perspective from the one you've just provided. It is our view that we really require a comprehensive gravel removal plan for the Fraser River. Removing gravel is controversial, as I've indicated. There are various perspectives on that from various individuals and organizations.

That led the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the provincial government, and other institutions, including the University of British Columbia, to work together and collaborate to produce a gravel removal plan that eventually became the foundation of an agreement between the province and the federal government. That plan lays out the conditions under which we would remove gravel, and identifies a number of sites, and so forth, that would lend themselves to gravel removal. Additionally, there are further constraints and provisions in place about how that gravel would be removed, the time of year it would be removed, the manner in which it would be removed, and so forth.

We issued an authorization based on screening, consistent with the gravel removal framework I spoke of, and we actually allowed the causeway to be put in place. We discovered, as we moved along, that in a very short timeframe some of the things we had assumed would occur weren't occurring. We were not getting the flow through the causeway to the extent we thought was desirable, so within a week we went from the causeway being completed, to it being dismantled. We went from having a design feature to allow the water to flow through, to adjusting it for culverts, to removing it, all within a week.

Because we were monitoring it, we realized we weren't getting the kind of flowthrough we thought was desirable. All of this was based on thoughtful consideration of a framework that was already in place and had been negotiated with various groups, including ourselves and the province, based on science and our own evaluation this year about when the best time was for that operation to take place.

In the end, we had a causeway that was constructed on March 3 and dismantled on March 11, with action taken in between those two places based on evidence that suggested to us that it was not passing water the way we had assumed it would. Further, we've put in a review to determine what we can learn from that.

From our perspective, we believe we took concerted effort to arrive at a consensus on a gravel framework that involved a wide array of people. We believe we took specific measures in 2006 to try to ameliorate the impacts of that particular site. But having said that, we discovered that there were issues in 2006, and we're going to learn from them and take them into consideration in the future.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

You did not answer my question. You negotiated a gravel removal plan. I have no problem with that. But I do have a problem with the way in which it was done.

As a precaution, the department was responsible for ensuring that there would be enough water flowing through. That was not done. I do not know why, because you have not answered my question.

Why did the department not install culverts that were big enough to ensure that the flow would not be affected? It's simple. I am sorry, but it isn't rocket science to ensure that you have big enough culverts to allow an acceptable flowthrough. Basically, what you are saying is that you used big rocks then realized that the water was not getting through.

Can you believe it? Come on!

It is all well and good to have a gravel removal plan, but there is a limit to how much you can disregard. Just install culverts that are the right size, and that will take care of it. Nothing could be simpler. It is not rocket science!

[Paul Sprout]

If I could just add one final remark, from my perspective the question of why is a good one. It is something we are prepared to look into and are looking into. From our perspective--and even from that of your previous witness last week--there's little dispute about the removal of gravel from that site. That site is generally considered to be a good one to remove gravel.

The issue is, how did you do it? How did that come about? How did you decide to have a causeway there, and did you take into consideration reasonable precautions in putting in a causeway? Were the assumptions you made reasonably valid under the circumstances? Those are the questions you've raised.

We agree that we do need to go back and look at why. That is what the review is designed to do. We are asking ourselves why we put the causeway in. What were the assumptions that we made when we put the causeway in? Were those valid assumptions to make, and if they were not valid and based on good evidence and good information, what can we learn from that for the future?

So we don't disagree with the notion that we have to ask why. We are going to ask why. We're going to have an answer to that, and then we're going to take measures based on that answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Sprout, Monsieur Roy.

Ms. Crowder, you have five minutes.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I want to thank you for appearing today.

I'm a westerner. I don't normally sit on this committee, but I read the transcript in preparation for this, and what I observed was that the witnesses who appeared at the committee said it was a normal flow for that time of year.

I also read the letter of agreement, and it very clearly lays out a fish habitat assessment mitigation plan and monitoring plan. And then I went back to the 2004 report from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. The commissioner was very critical of the department's ability in terms of the management of information--whether it had access to good information, whether it was gathering information that was appropriate. Any number of issues were raised about the department in 2004.

What I would like to hear from you, specifically, is what steps were taken before this plan was developed in March. I know that you're undergoing a review, but I think I would like to hear, specifically, what it was that was in place before this operation began, given the fact that we know what the water flows look like in the Fraser River. So I wonder if you could comment on that.

The second piece I'd like to hear is about the specific monitoring methods that are in place, because this plan clearly lays out a responsibility for DFO for gravel removal supervision. It's very clear about what actions the department has to take. And I think what I heard you say was that other people pointed this out, rather than the department itself.

[Paul Sprout]

Thank you.

I think I'll start, based on my understanding, and then I'm going to ask Mr. Wild to fill in some of the gaps.

First of all, as I've indicated, there is the broad framework, which you've referred to, that provides general guidance in terms of provisions for gravel removal on the Fraser River. So that lays out the amount of gravel to be removed on an annual basis over the five-year period, and it identifies the procedures we would use to do that.

Secondly, there is a CEAA review that's done each year for each site, which is an environmental assessment that provides the basis for identifying particular mitigating circumstances, if there turn out to be any, and what might be required from the proponent to allow that operation to occur. So that also occurred for this particular site.

You made two other points. One was about water flow. You commented that we know what the flow is like--

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Based on historical data. I mean, we can't know exactly, but my understanding is that the witnesses said it was within the normal range for that time of year.

[Paul Sprout]

Okay. I just want to speak to that.

The reality is that on the ground, at the site, there are conditions under which you can access that gravel site in a safe way, and there are conditions under which you can't. We have to actually make an on-site decision at the time. We have to actually evaluate the flow of the river at that time relative to the conditions that would safely permit access to that gravel location. So that's made at the time and takes into consideration the river conditions.

The river last year, earlier than when the gravel was removed, was very high, and then it began to drop quite rapidly at about the time the decision was made to allow the causeway to be put into place. The point I'm trying to make here is that you have to take into consideration the local conditions. And your ability to use average flow conditions and so forth to shape what you actually do on the ground is limited. You have to use the conditions that exist at the time the decision to put in that causeway is being made.

With respect to the community, which is another point you raised, it is true, and I certainly received calls from some individuals, at least one of whom spoke to your group, which certainly caused me to want to talk to my staff about what was going on, and which, in addition to their own observations, led to the changes I've already spoken about: the installation of the culvert, and finally, the decision to cease the operations and remove the causeway.

Again, I would just say that all of this was occurring in one week: completing the causeway, deciding to stop the gravel, and starting to decommission the causeway. And this was all happening while the river was dropping, and we were taking into consideration the local conditions.

So I think, in summary, we have to respond to the conditions that exist in the river at that time. The river conditions were that the flow was lower than normal, but it wasn't the lowest flow we'd ever observed. Clearly that was not the case. It is my understanding that it was slightly below average. We took into consideration the conditions of the river flow at that particular moment. The input into that decision was certainly supported, based on advice from the community, some of whose members you've spoken of today, and our own observations from staff on-site.

I'm going to ask if Mr. Wild wants to talk a little bit about the monitoring issues you've raised.

[Jim Wild]

Quickly, on the flow, from the time the causeway was put in to the day we took it out, the flow actually dropped by about one-third. So on-site it dropped quite a bit, and that's why we reacted very quickly.

On the monitoring, simply put, it's a condition of the work that day-to-day monitoring is mandatory. In addition to that, I went up four times, and I had technical people up there as well, and other private citizens were doing a pretty good job of monitoring and keeping pictures and such as well. So there was a lot of monitoring.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Wild.

Thank you, Ms. Crowder.

Mr. Kamp, for ten minutes, please.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for appearing.

We may have some questions about enforcement as we go; be prepared for those as well, but let me follow up on a few things on this gravel extraction first.

The CEAA evaluations that are done, would they have been done...? It seems to me one of the key components of this whole enterprise would be how you're going to get from the bank to the gravel bar. So would the CEAA evaluations have been done with the notion that this causeway was going to be used to get out there, or was some other method of getting over to the gravel bar considered?

[Paul Sprout]

My understanding is the evaluation would have assumed or been based on how we would access the gravel site, but I'm just going to confirm that with Jim.

[Jim Wild]

Yes, that's correct.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

The CEAA evaluation thought it was all right to build the kind of causeway that was actually built. Is that correct?

[Paul Sprout]

That's correct. The CEAA evaluation...we would have assumed there'd be certain design features to facilitate the movement of water, as I've already said, and the evaluation would have assumed that in its screening.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

I think you said, or perhaps it was Mr. Wild who said, the contractor decided not to put in the bridge. So how much latitude did they have to adjust this plan as they went--or were you involved in this as well?

[Paul Sprout]

I'm going to ask Jim to respond. Maybe I'll just open.

I think the proponent ultimately has to make the decision about the safety issues. That individual is responsible for the people who have to work under his direction. That said, my understanding is there were discussions between the department and the proponent; we were aware the conditions were very challenging, and this appeared to be a reasonable decision under the circumstances.

I'll ask Jim to talk to that.

[Jim Wild]

Yes, very quickly.

The contractor placed the causeway, and the plan was to then take out a section from either side and lower in an 18-foot bridge, not a very large bridge. The main reason for the bridge was navigable waters, to allow the passage of, for instance, a kayak or a canoe. At that time, the contractor advised us he was unable to do that because of the bridge and the water and the velocity. He said if anyone does come by, they'll get sucked under there, and possibly killed. So at that time they decided not to put the bridge in.

Paul mentioned the velocity earlier. It's deeper here than normal for most crossings, quite a bit deeper, and the velocity was higher and that was taking away the gravel base, so actually the bridge could have failed as well.

So that was his call for his insurance purposes.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

There is a notion out there, and I think it probably needs to be mentioned, that provisions about gravel removal are built into some DFO contracts. In other words, people get paid more if they facilitate certain gravel removal projects. Is there any truth to that?