When It Comes To McMillan Creek , Does The Left Hand Know What The Right Hand Is Doing

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 03:45 AM

We have just spent one and half million bucks building a new bridge over McMillan Creek but a report which suggest that the stream needs environmental cleaning up sits on a shelf gathering dust.

It is a true case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing, in the report in March of 2007, the Ministry of the Environment said that McMillan Creek is, “stressed “. That stressing, according to the report, comes from fecal bacteria contamination coming from ruminant animals, pigs, dogs, and horses. The report goes on to say:

It was also found that the City storm drain, located upstream from Hoferkamp Road on McMillan Creek (in the lower portion), appears to have a substantial impact on the loading of total suspended solids, bacteria, total phosphorus, nitrate/nitrite, sodium chloride and various potentially toxic metals.

So what was the upshot of all that? Well the City got rid of the culvert that crossed P.G. Pulp Mill rd and replaced it with a new bridge.

What was done to improve the creek? Nothing.

But now we have a different wing of the Ministry looking to see if there is anyone interested in starting up a "Stewardship" group.

So you might want to ask the question; Why did we go to the expense and effort to build a new bridge over the mouth of the little creek (which supports a variety of fish) when we were not prepared to do anything about the condition of the creek?

Is it a case that the right hand in the Ministry of the Environment doesn’t know what the left hand is doing? The city of Prince George spent a ton of dough on a project when the first priority should have been looking at the condition of the stream?

To this date on a scale of one to ten, both the City and the Ministry receive a clear 2.

If the Province is looking to save money it may want to start with this Ministry by putting everyone in the same room so perhaps both sides will know what they are doing.

I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 03:45 AM in Views by Ben Meisner

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: muckermike on September 29 2009 7:37 AM

Bang on Ben!

Posted by: Palopu on September 29 2009 11:15 AM

The City spent the money on the Bridge over McMillan Creek to connect to and work with the round a bout on the North end of the new Cameron St., Bridge. I doubt if it had anything to do with the creek per se.

They took the money out of the Community Improvement Fund, and they took the money for the Round a bout out of the road fund, so that the end cost of the Cameron St., Bridge would appear to be less than it actually cost. Ie; $1.5 Million Community Fund and $1.5 to $2 Million road fund.

When all the costs associated with this bridge are added up, I suspect that the cost of the New Cameron St., Bridge has ballooned from the projected $8.5 Million to somewhere in the vacinity of $15 Million. Smoke and mirrors.

PS. It will be a frosty day in Hell before you see 8000 vehicles per day using this bridge, and a lot longer (if ever) before this number rises to 14000 vehicles per day as projected by the City.

Much like the $8Million improvement to River Road, which was not necessary, and as far as I can see serves no useful purpose. The Citys portion of this project $4Million could have gone a long way to improve roads, etc all over the City. Instead we get an improvement in a little used Industrial area, that is completely out of proportion to what was required.

Posted by: metalman on September 29 2009 1:33 PM

I still question why it was decided that a bridge was needed to replace the aging culvert. Why not another culvert? There are many options here, one of which is an arch span, which is just culvert like panels bolted together, engineered for the duty required, with a potentially lower profile than a round culvert. let's face it, the old culvert lasted for about 45 years, did it not? Or was it replaced once since originally installed in the mid sixties? Either way, it lasted for decades, thus is a far more cost effective solution, compared to a bridge.
metalman.

Posted by: BigJay on September 29 2009 3:27 PM

Just because there are contaminants in the creek, does not mean that fish no longer use it (if that was true, there would be no fish left in BC).

News flash - there are a lot of fish in McMillan Creek. And thanks to the new bridge, there will be a whole lot more fish once they can swim up from the Nechako River past the first 50 m of McMillan Creek to enhance to exixting populations furhter upstream.

Not to say that the contamination issue should not be addressed - but nothing will be done about that unless residents in the area are on board.

Good on the city for caring about fish habitat - not just about imagined controversy.