Lake Errock Gravel Pit Redevelopment

I believe it is possible for the pit to be developed in a proper manner (50 to 60 homes), but to go ahead with so many homes will be a disaster waiting to happen. Having a sewage treatment plant situated in the place they have in mind is quite foolish. Let the waste filter back into the ground at that volume into the ground water and therefore the lake doesn't make sense. Maybe they should find an other place far away from the lake. This is a red zone we live in. Even if you take care, something is bounded to go wrong. Also, I believe they should be doing more test in the summer months when the water table is lower to really see the volume of water, especially this year it was almost a drought here. These test should be done by an independent company not involved with this development. Eventually, Lake Errock should get off septic field and be included in this sewage treatment plant. Also, more people means more damage will be done to the lake. I am concerned with the amount of traffic that will occur in the future too. For example, look what happened when the highway was closed during the floods, the traffic was intense. So, I think the road has to be improve before building. Can the road and the ground water take such a big amount of new homes and people without a disaster happening ????
L. W Resident of Lake Errock

I support this project and an increase in available housing in the area. We desperately need additional variety of housing for now and the future. There isn't a better spot to build housing than an empty old gravel pit with no vegetation there already. Please build this to help grow our community sustainably for the future.

Hi, my name is Cara Elliot, I currently work at a local business and rent in Harrison Mills. There is no current housing options for me to buy. I would to purchase a house and stay in the area. I am fully supportive of this project.

Hello FVRD,

My primary concern with this project is the proposed density which can be considered urban sprawl. Why repeat mistakes made in the Metro Vancouver area with urban sprawl. Further, with this proposed level of density where are the retail amenities to support it? As a resident of the Lake Errock community, who currently has a direct sight line to the existing gravel pit, I'm concerned about light pollution, loss of green space and pressure on the aquifers in the area.

My feedback for consideration:
- Significant landscaping throughout the development site which includes native trees and plants.
- Limited or directional street lights to minimize light pollution which impacts wildlife and human enjoyment for stargazing.
- Significant trail system that includes a safe route from the Lake Errock community across the #7HWY.
- Addition of retail amenities to the site plan
- Ability for the Lake Errock Community to be included in the sewer treatment system
- Upgrades to the #7 HWY to include a multi-use trail which runs from Lake Errock to Mission and Lake Errock to Harrison Mills/ Harrison River bridge.

Thank you

We strongly oppose the proposed housing development at the gravel pit to the north-west of the lake.
We are part-time recreational residents of Lake Errock. My father-in-law bought a lakefront lot on the north side of the lake almost 60 years ago. He and my brother-in-law then built a small cabin (about 900 q. ft.) which we have enjoyed for summer lake activities and for winter skiing at Hemlock Valley (now Sasquatch). He is gone now, and we are in the process of transferring it to our son and grandson. The latter will be a fourth-generation user.
We concur with virtually all the previous negative postings. In addition, some of our objections are:
1. Sewage treatment: a bit of research reveals that “sewage treatment” is not a simple, idealistic process.
a. The effectiveness of it, and the cost, can vary significantly, as can the smells produced.
b. Typically, a fairly strong breeze comes up most afternoons. I have used this to advantage for many years of sailing and windsurfing. The issue here is the direction; typically it blows from west to east and hence would carry any sewage odors directly over to north Lake Errock.
c. The end product of an effective sewage treatment process is basically fertilizer, and hence would greatly magnify the issue of weed growth especially at the shallower west end. This could effectively eliminate the lake in a few years, as happened to Burnaby Lake.
2. Traffic and parking:
a. As others have pointed out, outsider use of the small park in north Lake Errock has increased significantly in recent years. The big issue here is parking capacity, with outsider cars parked so they partially obstruct the traveled portion of the roads. This could be an issue for fire and ambulance first responders.
b. We have also had outsider cars parked so that they partially block our driveway.
c. Residents of the proposed development are not likely to walk down to the lake but will most likely drive.
d. The finished residences will most likely be advertised for sale as “close to a lake.”
3. What will be the effect on our taxes in order to support the increased demand for expanded government services?
a. Schools
b. Medical
c. Fire
4. Finally, I was astounded/amazed/horrified to see the massive increase in the number of housing units in the current proposal versus earlier versions. The proposed development will approximately triple the number of residences less than 2 kilometers from the lake.

As a Concerned Resident, Page 117 - 14-158 Lake Errock Engineering Servicing Plan Report indicates "Although no reliable measurement was obtained from these tests, it can be concluded that the infiltration rate into the gravely sediments is relatively high. Based on experience with similar sediments at other locations, an infiltration rate of 15 to 20 m/hr can be assumed for the Site."

This strongly suggests that lawn fertilizer would end up in the lake in about 2 hours... Is that good for the lake or can that be mitigated?

As a Concerned Resident, Page 117 - 14-158 Lake Errock Engineering Servicing Plan Report indicates "Although no reliable measurement was obtained from these tests, it can be concluded that the infiltration rate into the gravely sediments is relatively high. Based on experience with similar sediments at other locations, an infiltration rate of 15 to 20 m/hr can be assumed for the Site." an Later in the report, Page 120, it indicates "Based on the water level equipotentials included on Figures 5, 6, and 7, the greatest ambient hydraulic gradient in the area of the proposed RI basins is approximately 0.1 (10%). The
estimated hydraulic conductivity for the aquifer is 1.2 x 10-4 m/s (9.9 m/d). The effective porosity
was assumed to be 20%. Solving for ν* using the ambient hydraulic gradient yields a maximum groundwater flow velocity of 4.2 m/day. Once a mound has formed in response to RIB loading, the estimated flow velocity will increase to a maximum of 5.0 m/day near the edge of the basin where the gradient is steepest. infiltration rate of 15 to 20 m/hr can be assumed for the Site."

Please explain why there is a discrepancy in groundwater flow. Also could you please explain how K was calculated knowing that Darcy's Law has Limitations that include.


Darcy’s law can be applied to many situations but does not correspond to these assumptions.

Unsaturated and Saturated flow.
Flow in fractured rocks and granular media.
Transient flow and steady-state flow.
Flow in aquitards and aquifers.
Flow in Homogeneous and heterogeneous systems.

As a Concerned Resident, I read that the 14-158 Lake Errock Engineering Servicing Plan Report indicates the BC Approved Water Quality Aquatic Life Guideline for nitrate is 3 mg/L-N and Assuming all of the effluent nitrogen is converted to nitrate, Piteau conservatively estimates a maximum nitrate concentration of about 0.6 mg/L-N; also total phosphorous in treated wastewater will ultimately need to be about 0.3mg/L to achieve the upper range of the aquatic water quality guideline (0.015 mg/L) for water entering the lake.... Has lake water been tested to see the ACTUAL nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations so that it can be determined if this additional release of nitrogen and phosphorous may elevate concentrations above the BC Approved Water Quality Aquatic Life Guideline.

As a Concerned Resident I would like to know at what Stage this Project is with DFO? DFO requires notification as per their web site----> https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/reviews-revues/request-review-demande-d-examen-001-eng.html

The Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program ensures compliance with relevant provisions under the Fisheries Act and the Species at Risk Act. The program reviews proposed works, undertakings and activities that may impact fish and fish habitat.

If your project is taking place in or near water, you’re responsible for:

understanding the risks to fish and fish habitat associated with your project
taking measures to avoid and mitigate risks to fish and fish habitat
requesting an authorization from the Minister and abiding by the conditions of your authorization when it is not possible to avoid and mitigate risks to fish and fish habitat
ensuring compliance with all statutory instruments, including federal and provincial legislations
You can submit your project plans for us to review and we’ll:

identify the risks to fish and fish habitat associated with your project
work with you to ensure that risks are managed in the best way possible
For additional help, seek advice from a qualified environmental professional.

I feel the gravel pit should be allowed to be a working gravel pit until mined out. A relatively short period of time. Not the best thing to look at. Maybe a bit noisy. But it does have a definite life span.
The working gravel pit was a good neighbour. Provided local jobs. Only worked during regular business hours.
When the pit is finished. Then consider developing it into residential. Preferably a small number of houses on large lots. With their own septic systems.
I feel present plan is too ambitious. The density is far too high for rural life style. There is no infrastructure in this area. No parks No swimming pool. No sports complex. No garbage service. No public transit. Not much of anything. We, who live here , call it rural living.
That’s the way it should stay.
There are thousands of acres of land between Vancouver and Lake Errock the should be developed first. Land that is already serviced by public transit. Already has public infrastructure in place.

As a Concerned Resident and knowing that the proposed development will be Huge, will the storm water collection system undergo some sort of treatment prior to being discharged into our Lake? Road surface storm water collection will include fresh asphalt oils, oil from cars, rubber from car tyres, nutrients, etc... PCOC include LEPH/HEPH, PAH, BETX, vulcanized rubber, Phosphorous, Nitrogen , etc... Due to the size of the development the concentrations of these contaminants could be elevated to toxic levels if not mitigated. Also, storm sewer systems provide extremely rapid transport of water into our Lake preventing any capture and mitigation if a release of toxins occurs.

As a Concerned Resident I understand that this is development could adversely affect our Lake. The installation of underground utilities, installing impervious surfaces and redirecting drainage water into pipes or streams could alter the water recharge rate into our Lake. 1,) Has above ground surface water flow been computer modelled? 2,) Can that report be made public? 3,) Has the FVRD conducted background sampling of our Lake for dissolved metals, discharge flow, nutrients? 4,) If no background sampling has been conducted can the FVRD provide funding to support such sampling?

As a Concerned Resident, I would expect that the owners of the gravel pit have taken leachate water samples as part of their gravel removal operation. These sample results would indicate if any dissolved metals are entering the Lake. As good Stewards of the Environment, I request that this monitoring data be made public.

As a Concerned Resident I know that the developer has conducted groundwater modelling. This data has not been made available to the public. The public has a right to know the direction and flow rate of groundwater including any contaminants such as nutrient will migrate from the proposed building site to the Lake.

As a Concerned Resident of Lake Errock and knowing that this development will be HUGE. I am concerned that nutrients (Nitrogen and Prosperous) from gardening will negatively affect our Lake. The Gravel Pit is coarse filter but will have little effect of filtering out nutrients. As an environmental engineer, I would like to see the developers data on how exactly they believe their subdivision will mitigate the infiltration of nutrient into our Lake.

I do not want to be disrespectful, but this development project is a horrible idea and will likely be very detrimental to the surrounding area and its residents. The project will add 600 to 1000 residents to the area, with perhaps 500 cars, which will have to "safely" exit the highway which has single lanes each way. How many children will be living there and will there be room in local schools?
Currently we enjoy sitting outside watching the stars at night, which will now have the glow of hundreds of lights overlooking our house.
But the biggest concern is the waste water treatment plant running 24 hours a day. We are very skeptical of the PROMISES MADE, that there will be no noise, smell or dirty water runoff into the lake.

I am strongly opposed to the development. I have consulted a foreman that has worked on other developments similar in nature regarding this site and he confirmed my suspicions - that the assurances I received privately from the engineers about the sewage treatment plant are false. The plant will omit an odor, will make noise and be lit up 24/hours a day. The noise, light and olfactory pollution of the treatment plant alone will have a major impact on the existing homes that have been there decades. If that was not the case, they'd build their homes around it but instead they've chosen to put it off to the edge to minimize the impact it will have on the homes in the development, not caring how it impacts existing homes. Add in the the additional 600+ residents from the 290 residential units and that is further exacerbated. Bring on safety issues on our small roads as another 600+ cars navigate them on a daily basis, trespass over the rail lines to access the lake, park illegally in front of existing homes. In the summer we already have our driveways blocked from non-residents using the lake, our fences/gates hit by cars turning around and are forced to deal with drunkenness at the beach and on the water. We purchased this home almost 2 decades ago for retirement and are nearing that stage in our lives. However, we now found ourselves considering selling because we don't want to spend our retirement years surrounded by a 10 year construction site - we've lived that already in the city. It is unfortunate that the greed of one developer is going to ruin a small community that has a 70 year history of children playing in the streets, community BBQs at the beach and taking care of our seniors in their old age. I also challenge the statement that this will provide affordable housing and local jobs for the communities youth - these homes are being built to maximize the view - they won't be built with affordability in mind but rather to attract urbanites that want to leave the city. As well, the contractors used to build this will likely be skilled labour from elsewhere in the valley, rather than training local youth. Long term jobs will be non-existent as this will end up being a residential community rather than mixed use. It is simply bringing suburban Vancouver to our front door in picturesque countryside. Please vote no on this development plan and save Lake Errock.

I do not agree with this project at all however my main concern is where they are putting the sewage plant there is no way that should be right across the highway from the residence on the lake people did not buy waterfront property and pay a fortune to be looking at a sewage plant if this project has to continue that plant must be moved somewhere that isn’t in view of the lake houses. The sewage plant must be relocated so people on the lake cannot see it smell it or hear it!

My lot is right across the proposed sewage treatment plant. Please share the detailed report of possible health hazards including that from the noise generated from STP and the revised plan by FVRD to relocate it far away from my lot. I do not want it anywhere within 500 metres of my lot due to health hazards.

Let’s not put the cart before the horse. Let’s talk Hwy 7 the number of accidents is high, and often causes the Hwy to shut down due to severe injuries. Resulting in residents have to go through Chilliwack or wait it out. Once winter is done our traffic increases and reaches an unbearable level. Weekends and especially on the long weekends to people coming this way for recreational activities. I don’t even try going to town on Sunday or the Monday on a long weekends. The Hwy is dangerous enough but you have people towing without proper vehicles, passing illegally and ridiculous speeds. Trying to beat the train, the list is long. You have people parked every which way at the KFC, gas stations and Deroche store. They run across the highway like squirrels and it’s an accident waiting to happen. When there is actually a safe enough space to pull out on Lougheed and avoid being killed, you hit a parking lot once you get out of Dewdney and takes forever to get into Mission. The Hwy needs an upgrade first before considering to have that number of people call this area home. With a higher population we would also need consider emergency paid full time person. Swimming at Lake Errock that my children enjoy, will be in the past, with the addition of all those people, and their visitors. It’s sad that people move away to enjoy nature and the quiet but it never stays away long