Lake Errock Gravel Pit Redevelopment

I am a new resident to the Lake Errock community. I have worked with municipalities throughout BC and understand the needs and desires to expand regions and communities, such as outlined in the FVRD Regional Growth Strategy. When placing my house offer, I was thrilled with the idea of the development taking place, to increase the future value of my own property. But… then I spent time there, and read the new documents provided by GWEB Holdings LTD.

I’ve talked with the local community, many of whom have lived here for decades and understand the environment, express how they have witnessed the environmental changes already with the rock pit impacting the natural landscape and rhythms of the area. I have taken time to read the recent reports, letters, and impact studies and I do not find GWEB Holdings LTD to have adequately presented a proposal that’s positive outcomes for the community outweigh the volatile impact it will have on multiple fronts.

I’ve seen the natural beauty and delicate wildlife the lake has to offer and worry about all of the same legitimate concerns my fellow neighbours have put forward in previous meetings about the serious negative affects the development will have on the land, water, and wildlife. Though GWEB Holdings LTD have produced some reporting noting the ‘minimal impact’ the development will have, that minimal level is not guaranteed to stay small. For example….

It’s worrisome to have read the following statement: "The south bank of Watercourse B has become compromised. A Water Sustainability Act Section 11 approval application is being prepared to reenforce the unstable section of the bank, and ensure flows remain within the fishbearing Watercourse B and prevent future blow-outs through the bank that have resulted in water running onto the ground and not contributing to the downstream fish habitat. This bank stabilization will potentially allow for an increased developable area Letter for Density Update APLIN & MARTIN CONSULTANTS LTD. PAGE 3 PROJECT NO. 14-158 February 12, 2024 within the northeast corner of the site, and hence, we are requesting to secure this additional density once the WSA approval is received."

Not only has it reported that there indeed ARE environmental impacts already in that area that are having to be contained and fixed, but that due to the cost of these stabilizations… GWED Holdings LTD are now proposing to increase the footprint of the development and the number of units to cover such costs!


In my short time here, I’ve experienced the escape this area provides - not just to residents, but the FVRD visitors coming to the local beach. In the summer our neighbourhood is already at full capacity with roadways blocked. In response to the very real concern about the current over capacity issues at the public beach, the quote is that it is a public beach and the development "cannot guarantee whether future residents would be using those spaces in the future.” Though the statement is true, it is misleadingly foolish to believe that an increase of hundreds of residents who have bought ‘lake side’ property, plus their visitors, will not contribute to higher numbers using the Lake - and with that an increase in garbage, human waste, chemicals from sunscreen lotions, etc going into the water. Additionally, as someone who has attempted to cycle and run along the highway, their proposal to have public crosswalks across Lougheed Highway and multi-use path along the highway to mitigate parking issues is extremely worrisome for the health and safety of pedestrians and drivers.

In conclusion, I’ve seen the Lake Errock community thriving within it’s current model. Lake Errock is a delicate ecosystem, that is in danger with any larger development being built up where there is not sufficient space, landscape, or infrastructures to accommodate. In addition to the environment impact studies, the increase in residents to the area will be quite a significant impact to the entire culture of the area as well, which have not been fully explored.

There is no need for this development to move forward, and does not have the support of it’s community’s needs. I believe the current community of Lake Errock already fulfills the FVRD goals of economic strength and resiliency, living well, and community building, set out in their Regional Growth Strategy. The new development will not provide more affordable housing, as desired by the handful of supportive comments from regional non-locals on this page. The new development will not positively impact the current residents of the area. Therefore, I no longer support the proposed development plans.

I totally oppose the proposed project. From an environmental standpoint, sewage, lawncare pesticides and other contaminants have potential to trickle down to the lake and surrounding land. I've observed the decline and absolute depletion of ecosystems such as tree frogs and other frogs over the past 30 years of owning a vacation property at Lake Errock. The problem of overcrowding at the beach and general pollution left of the beach front (which will be high traffic at the main beach along Errock Place Road as the other side of the lake is closed to public access). The quiet enjoyment of our property will be diminished by vacation goers, new residents, traffic, and construction noises. I vote NO.

I think this project is too big. What happened to the proposed project of 55 houses ?
I am really concerned about Lake Errock, contamination, smells due to the sewage treatment plant, traffic...
Resident of L.E

As a resident for 30 years, I hope the developer has a plan B, with less houses. Several issues with current proposal:
- Water runoff - we all know it runs downhill with the lake being at the bottom, my concern is the impact on the lake.
- Sewage treatment facility and it's odors will have impact on residents around lake
- access to the lake - currently if you are not at the lake by 10am, forget going, and now this development proposal will have increased users, it's a small lake!!
- building on the side of a mountain - who will be responsible if it should slide?
- less gravel trucks? - for the last 4+ years the mine operator has been hauling
loads of raw material to their other pit at the end of
Ohman Road for, I assume future gravel processing, will
be same truck traffic, just from different location.
- Infrastructure needs to be considered and secured BEFORE approving this many residents including:
- schools - Mission can barely support current capacity
- highway - with increased commuters from this development and so
many accidents between here and Mission we need improvements
- fire / health will need to be upgraded to accommodate this many residents
- hydro power needs to be upgraded - we have a lot of outages in this area
- no natural gas in the area - propane is getting really expensive!

We have owned property in Lake Errock since the mid 80s and have always known it as a beautiful get away from the city. Back then, it was a little sleepy lakeside community with very few full time residents. While I realize development and growth is inevitable in the area, I am strongly opposed to this large project. I concur with all the previous concerns posted here. I do not believe that the developer has the future health of the lake in mind, only money. This proposed new community will most likely be advertised as “lake” property, only bringing more people, pollution and traffic to this beautiful little lakeside community.

I live in Chilliwack and I work in Harrison Mills. Since I started at my job 2 years ago I've wanted to move to that area but I have had a hard time finding a place. I would absolutely love to have more opportunity for housing closer to my job, and in such a beautiful place.

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.