Paranoid Creek Bridge Decommission - Page 2 - ClubTread Community

User Tag List

 36Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #16 of (permalink) Old 10-08-2015, 10:52 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: surrey, british columbia, Canada.
Posts: 247
Send a message via MSN to brett
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dru View Post
I have some completely unverified ideas about this.

My thinking has developed from working on environmental assessments, which is my day job.

The Mamquam IPP would likely have gone through one of these EAs. There would have been a section of the EA where the impact of the project on the surrounding environment was considered.

The assessment may have concluded that increased recreational traffic in areas surrounding the project were unlikely to occur.

Now that the project has gone ahead, and suddenly climbers are using the project infrastructure to access the park, we have a much higher amount of use in an area of the park which previously saw significantly less human use. I suspect this may not have been correctly forecast in the EA.

They can't drop the approval for the project at this point. It's already built.

So instead they are scrambling to try and prevent the increased traffic into the park because it was not forecasted to occur. It's after the fact management.

Just a thought. I have no evidence to back any of this up. You might term it idle speculation on my part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krD4hdGvGHM
brett is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #17 of (permalink) Old 10-09-2015, 09:52 AM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Stoked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: , , .
Posts: 1,297
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDude View Post
so they made you cut out a log that had fallen naturally over a creek that you were using as a bridge? (among other things, obviously)
The naturally fallen log is still there. We just removed the safety improvements we added, primarily a steel hand cable. The cable was provided by the Skookum IPP. They were happy to give it to us.
Stoked is offline  
post #18 of (permalink) Old 10-09-2015, 12:55 PM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: , BC, Canada.
Posts: 2,463
Default

Thanks for all the extra info. Was the bridge inside of Garibaldi Provincial Park?
Steventy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #19 of (permalink) Old 10-09-2015, 01:34 PM
Off the Beaten Path
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: , , .
Posts: 563
Default

Steventy: Based on a few maps I've seen, it isn't.

The reason I heard for the dismantling of this trail was because of some endangered wildlife, but the person who told me that thought that Parks was being a little creative with some of the facts.
trick is offline  
post #20 of (permalink) Old 10-09-2015, 03:06 PM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: , BC, Canada.
Posts: 2,463
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trick View Post
Steventy: Based on a few maps I've seen, it isn't.

The reason I heard for the dismantling of this trail was because of some endangered wildlife, but the person who told me that thought that Parks was being a little creative with some of the facts.

If it is outside of a park, the rules are generally in favor of the trail builders. Inside of a park, it is much more complicated.

Outside of a park:


https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsr...rrec/frr.htm#3

****************************
PART 3 - UNAUTHORIZED TRAIL OR RECREATION FACILITY CONSTRUCTION

Consent under section 102 of Act not required

3 (1) For the purposes of section 102 of the Act, the construction, rehabilitation or maintenance of a trail or recreation facility does not include

(a) marking a route with ribbons, cairns or other directional indicators,

(b) minor, piecemeal clearing of brush or downed trees, or

(c) emergency repairs to a trail or recreation facility that are necessary to prevent imminent damage to the trail or facility.

(2) Despite section 102 of the Act, a person may construct, rehabilitate or maintain a trail without the consent of the district manager if doing so is the only reasonable means of minimizing a risk to personal safety.
****************************


****************************
(5) The district manager may refuse to consent to a proposal only if he or she determines that the proposal will result in one or more of the following:

(a) significant risk to public safety;

(b) unacceptable damage to the environment;

(c) unresolvable conflict with other resource values or uses.
****************************
Steventy is offline  
post #21 of (permalink) Old 10-09-2015, 04:36 PM
Off the Beaten Path
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: , , .
Posts: 563
Default

So presumably 5b would be the problem here.
trick is offline  
post #22 of (permalink) Old 10-09-2015, 04:48 PM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: , BC, Canada.
Posts: 2,463
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trick View Post
So presumably 5b would be the problem here.
Hard to say. The bridge itself does no damage to the environment. It is hard to argue that increased traffic from people being able to use the bridge would create unacceptable damage given that people can access the area through other means. The bridge is a mechanism to increase personal safety.

What exactly is their concern: Is it the mountain goats?


You might argue that consent was not actually required due to:

"(2) Despite section 102 of the Act, a person may construct, rehabilitate or maintain a trail without the consent of the district manager if doing so is the only reasonable means of minimizing a risk to personal safety."

It is unclear. They may argue that this clause only applies in the case where you are in the woods and face an imminent risk to personal safety if you do not construct a reasonable way to get out of the woods.
Steventy is offline  
post #23 of (permalink) Old 10-09-2015, 04:56 PM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: , BC, Canada.
Posts: 2,463
Default

You may actually find support for your cause from some surprising sources: Large commercial interests that have strong connections to the government. This decision creates a precedent (albeit a fairly weak one.) If a single steel cable across a log is considered to be too environmentally damaging then commercial entities may find it more difficult in the future to build IPPs, roads, gondolas, etc. An activist group that has no relation to the BCMC may use this case as an example of the precedent that has been set by the ministry regarding the evaluation of environmental risks.
Steventy is offline  
post #24 of (permalink) Old 10-10-2015, 12:28 AM Thread Starter
Hittin' the Trails
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 41
Default

The bridge was on crown land, several hundred meters from the park boundary. The B.C.M.C. never performed any work within the Park Boundary (not even cutting a single leaf or branch). Knowing the full details of this case, my response to the statement that "parks was being a little creative with regards to the facts in this case", especially in deference to wildlife concerns, is both generous and kind, and an understatement. I am attempting to spare the reputation of B.C. Parks from damage by not going into greater detail.

Last edited by junglesavage; 10-10-2015 at 12:35 AM.
junglesavage is offline  
post #25 of (permalink) Old 10-10-2015, 12:48 AM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: , BC, Canada.
Posts: 2,463
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by junglesavage View Post
The bridge was on crown land, several hundred meters from the park boundary. The B.C.M.C. never performed any work within the Park Boundary (not even cutting a single leaf or branch). Knowing the full details of this case, my response to the statement that "parks was being a little creative with regards to the facts in this case", especially in deference to wildlife concerns, is both generous and kind, and an understatement. I am attempting to spare the reputation of B.C. Parks from damage by not going into greater detail.

If it was on crown land, why was BC Parks even involved?
Steventy is offline  
post #26 of (permalink) Old 10-10-2015, 01:00 AM Thread Starter
Hittin' the Trails
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 41
Default

Parks has a veto over any section 57 application that enters a park, but not a trail solely on crown land. They are considered to be only a "stake holder" in the latter case. The B.C.M.C.'s original section 57 application to Darling Lake was rejected, but we resubmitted a new one that did not enter the park and included the bridge (but were still ordered to remove the bridge anyways). It is my experience that Forests and Parks bureaucrats work in tandem (they have direct working and even personal relationships) - protecting each other's interests and covering for each other's mistakes and dirty laundry.
junglesavage is offline  
post #27 of (permalink) Old 10-10-2015, 01:10 AM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: , BC, Canada.
Posts: 2,463
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by junglesavage View Post
Parks has a veto over any section 57 application that enters a park, but not a trail solely on crown land. They are considered to be only a "stake holder" in the latter case. The B.C.M.C.'s original section 57 application to Darling Lake was rejected, but we resubmitted a new one that did not enter the park and included the bridge (but were still ordered to remove the bridge anyways). It is my experience that Forests and Parks bureaucrats work in tandem (they have direct working and even personal relationships) - protecting each other's interests and covering for each other's mistakes and dirty laundry.
Frustrating to see that it went this way. I don't know any of the people involved but I'm guessing a lot of the folks that get into the Ministry of Forestry and BC Parks do it because they love the woods as much as we do.
Steventy is offline  
post #28 of (permalink) Old 10-10-2015, 01:16 AM Thread Starter
Hittin' the Trails
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 41
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steventy View Post
Frustrating to see that it went this way. I don't know any of the people involved but I'm guessing a lot of the folks that get into the Ministry of Forestry and BC Parks do it because they love the woods as much as we do.
No comment
junglesavage is offline  
post #29 of (permalink) Old 10-10-2015, 02:19 AM
Headed for the Mountains
 
matosan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Squamish, BC, Canada.
Interest: backcountry skiing, mountaineering
Posts: 269
Default

So disappointing. This is a great area to have access to. Is unfortunate that the volunteer efforts are getting punished rather than rewarded.

mg
matosan is offline  
post #30 of (permalink) Old 10-10-2015, 03:12 AM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Langley, BC
Posts: 104
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steventy View Post
Frustrating to see that it went this way. I don't know any of the people involved but I'm guessing a lot of the folks that get into the Ministry of Forestry and BC Parks do it because they love the woods as much as we do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by junglesavage View Post
No comment

I was wondering before, but now even more so what kind of people Ministry of Forestry especially hires. I listened to a story in university from someone in forestry about how they were downsizing so someone in the ministry got one of the guys to drive all around the province handing out pink slips, then when he got back to his own desk a few days later he found a pink slip on his own desk, and took it in the worse way possible...to put it nicely.

Ministry of Forests seems dark, sounds like BC Parks is too. What type of people are in the executive boards/major decision making roles? Business degree people and accountants or people who enjoy the outdoors?
Greenarc is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
 

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1