|
How about some opinions on this topic based on the reality of the situation at hand? Not second hand stuff...Some discussion exists under other topics but this deserves its own... The reality is do we keep building up dykes until the river bed height is higher than the surrounding lands and face the eventual price of dyke failure? Or find a way to reduce sediment build up in an increasingly older river drainage depositing thousands of tons of new material yearly? With minimal impact on fish of course... Thx. SBM
|
|
I think it's a given that gravel needs to be removed, how much, how fast is probably what we can impact as anglers. I would prefer to see all three options of flood reduction used to lessen the impact on fish and the river. Dyking can be used on some of the areas that have limited or no dyke protection at all. limited gravel removal of less than 25% of the annual gravel deposit modual(100,000 cu meters)for areas of build up, and last dredging for navigation and flood reduction. Because of the low snow pack this year there is no need to rush into removing gravel. There are however a few areas or issues that need addressing before the water drops. Navigation is an issue that must be addressed soon, the tugs are having a hell of a time getting through from Mission to Chilliwack. They want to remove the gravel to make navigation easier and cheaper. Why i say cheaper is that in the past they just dredge a path though a shallow area placing the gravel to the side, then when the water rises it fills in. No damage done to river or fish, 0% loss of gravel. The costs is huge for Catherwood towing, last year over $200,000. So what do they do this year? remove or dredge? Off topic a bit but still the same. I was up at Herling Island a couple of days ago, the top end has filled in with sand. You can still get a bounce if you cast beyond the riffle but as soon as your weight comes across the current your into muck. Sediment is right, more gravel loss, more mud bars.
|
|
What is the present percentage of gravel removeable in relation to the annual deposit? SBM
|
|
Scott, I have to be brief but i'll try to get a few points across. The biggest problem I have with the whole process is the uncertainty of the flood modual and gravel deposit numbers. Each time they re-visit the methods used to caculate these moduals the numbers for both the gravel deposit and flood modual become less. The Harrison river plays a large role in the flood profiles of the Fraser. I know it's hard to believe but it's true.During freshet periods the Harrison flow changes as the Fraser flow changes. The Fraser backs up the Harrison making the flood profile higher. The flood profile of the Harrison changed dramaticly last time they reviewed the profile lessening the Fraser flood risks. This would mean the there is less need to extract gravel. The gravel deposit numbers can be subjective due to several factors that are weighed in. One of the factors is in river shifting. many of the people doing these surveys are not familar with every bar that has been erroded over time. One of my arguments that was well received at the meeting I attended was how much of their gravel deposit formula takes into account in river shifting. I beleive that much more in river shifting occurs than they have estimated which would again reduce the gravel deposit estimates. For every new bar that has been formed there's a bar up river that has been erroded. Take for example the problems at Island 22. The bank at the top of Queens bar or Mountain Bar has been erroding the past two years. The gravel that has been torn away has been deposited in front of island 22 increasing the flood risk at that point. Many of the people who don't understand the river look at this as new gravel that can be removed with no net loss of gravel. I do agree something has to be done with island 22 but this is just one example I thought many could relate to as it's a well used area.
|
|
P.S. I'm not saying I have all the answers because i don't. I just would like to see more attention given to this issue. People like yourself could do alot to help with sorting this whole thing out. we really need more angler/river users to have input into the process. if we don't get on the band wagon soon it may be too late.
|
|
Vic, thompson et all... I've noted the site TA pointed out and will check it out... After speaking to several people in the Fraser valley area, I have noted several names I need to speak to for my own benefit first, Sandy Ritchie is one of them. I am also aware of some of the previous technologies used on the canal portion of the Vedder yet long ago abandoned such as the canal dredge. (Can anybody shed some light on way this was so? The canal portion of the river has obviously paid the price...I would love to know how much the riverbed level has risen in the last decade since the removal of the dredge system?) People here are typically apathetic about this and many other important issues, its very depressing that we can banter about a thousand different opinions of worthy fish species, techniques, management plans and alike yet none of the same people jump in on this issue...come on!!!where are the opinions when it actually means something?
|
|
I hear ya Scott, I guess for me it's more the attitude that was prevelant at the first Fraser Basin meeting that got me involved. I couldn't believe how misinformed most of the people were and how lop sided the table was. Out of 80 people 3 or 4 were there to protect fish and river, the rest want gravel at any cost. I don't know much about the Vedder canal so I can't comment. Sandy Richie would be a good choice to talk to or even Marvin Roseneau. Like I said above, I may not be totally right or have the answers but I think the debate needs to happen. If we don't hold someones feet to the fire the river will slowly be destroyed. Look around you, it doesn't take long to see what happens when nobody speaks up.
|