| Author |
Topic |
|
Victoria, BC
Canada
185 Posts |
|
Van, BC
Canada
2797 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2011 : 7:37 PM
|
Interesting situation... but a few questions.
-It's 3km long. What's it like on the ends - gradual sloping to ground level, can the animals walk/swim out to the lake/river at the end and get out, or is it a spillway gate that blocks their path?
-If it was built in 1958, why wasn't the problem not "known until relatively recently"?
-Regarding other animals that have "probably" died but "their carcasses washed away before anyone noticed them"... how would that happen when it is "only used about six weeks every year"?
-Ryan |
|
|
29 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2011 : 11:03 PM
|
| The dollar sign, seems to rule everything as we watch all of our freedoms, standards, and traditions that our grandparents practised (and taught) dissapear. |
|
|
North Vancouver, BC
Canada
1609 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2011 : 11:41 PM
|
It will be interesting to see what happens with this one.
Would the canal pass a modern environmental review if it was a new project? Could BC Hydro trigger an environmental review when they undertake the next modification/upgrade/maintenance on the canal? Considering that it is already built (in 1958,) are any regulations being broken by continuing to operate it in its current state?
As a heavily regulated utility, BC Hydro can't necessarily choose to take on environmental projects that go above and beyond the regulations/law. It has a duty to ratepayers to take all steps to provide the most affordable electricity while still following all of the applicable laws. Without more information, I can't fault them on this front.
If this project is considered to be optional (not legally required,) then it may have to come out of the $1.6 million fund. It's not hard to imagine that there are more worthy uses of that money. $200,000 can save more than a handful of elk. Without more information, I can't fault them for that decision either.
I think the most logical outcome is for someone from the Ministry of Environment (preferably a bureaucrat, not a politician) to order BC Hydro to install a fence based on this new information about wildlife movements in the area. I'm sure BC Hydro will be happy to comply and it won't get them in any heat with the regulators (they won't be spending our rate-payer money on a feel-good project; they will just be following the regulations.)
One other thing to consider:
It wasn't mentioned in the article but I could imagine this becoming much more expensive than $200,000. A complete fence will prevent other animals from being able to cross. Therefore, animal bridges may be needed. You also need to account for ongoing maintenance and inspection.
Perhaps a better and much more affordable solution is an animal staircase that would allow elk to get in and out of the canal without any trouble.
Here is a map of the area. I assume the canal goes between the Salmon River and Brewster Lake where they are the closest?
http://www.canmaps.com/topomaps/nts50/toporama/images/092k04.gif |
|
|
Victoria, BC
Canada
185 Posts |
|
Southern Vancouver Island, BC
Canada
231 Posts |
|
|
Happy go lucky, plaid wearin, postholin, safeway gaitor sportin, old-school film shootin, giver of many regards
Abbotsford, B.C.
Canada
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2011 : 9:43 PM
|
Bad publicity is not what they wanted. So it is good they are proactive in this issue.
K |
|
|
3022 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2011 : 10:42 AM
|
This was , I believe from a few years ago , a result of the Habitiat Conservation Fund , a review of a Wildlife Camera Project to study the effects of the water channel on wildlife crossings.[ I had recently been wondering what the results of this project were ]
It took the efforts of Fish & Game Clubs in the Area to alert the Ministry & Hydro to this problem.
Fish & Game Clubs are often overlooked as being significant contributors to Environmental & Land Issues.
They should get Kudos for this "exposed" problem . |
Edited by - cambium on 05/07/2011 10:46 AM |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
BC Hydro killing Roosevelt Elk
