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 3rd.
When did the work begin?