Asphalt paving on Fulford-Ganges Road between Beddis and Cranberry roads is on-schedule for this week, according to the project contractor, who said the intersection work at Beddis will kick off in earnest as well — and will likely take about two weeks. 

Over Thursday and Friday, July 24-25, according to a notice from Northridge Excavating Ltd. project manager Bob Mitchell, fresh asphalt will be put down as planned, one direction at a time on the southernmost stretch of the project — meaning drivers can expect single-lane alternating traffic on both days. Over the weekend and into the following week, he added, the intersection between Fulford-Ganges and Beddis/Charlesworth roads will remain gravelled while work there takes place. 

“This will increase traffic pressures for Beddis Road users,” said Mitchell. “Please be aware of gravelled surfaces and changed traffic patterns here.” 

Over the month of August, according to the notice, all intersections along the 1.6-kilometre project will receive their first layer of asphalt, and steel castings — think manhole covers and water valve boxes — currently beneath the surface will be cut out and raised to the eventual final roadway level.  

After that, a second layer of asphalt will be installed along the whole length of the project; the drainage system on the west side of the road will be paved; all intersections get their second and final layer of asphalt; all intersecting driveways will be regraded, and paved to the property line; and finally signage and painted pavement markings will be installed. 

The Fulford-Ganges Road Project is a $22.9-million effort, chiefly focused on the Ganges Hill section, where Ministry of Transportation and Transit officials have said work would include stormwater improvements, resurfacing, widening and paved shoulders for pedestrians and cyclists. 

As the days grow warmer and drier, officials announced campfires will be prohibited across Salt Spring Island — and across the Coastal Fire Centre region — as of noon Thursday, July 17. 

Salt Spring Island Fire Rescue Chief Jamie Holmes confirmed Wednesday the district was following the broader regional ban on campfires, which had been allowed so far this summer even while other sorts of backyard burning had been prohibited. This year’s prohibition on recreational fires comes at roughly the same time as a similar ban last year, when campfires joined the list of already prohibited burning activities on July 12, 2024. 

The broader notice on Thursday’s ban came Tuesday through the BC Wildfire Service. Apart from an exclusion in the Haida Gwaii Forest District and the portion of the Central Coast Regional District that falls within the North Island Central Coast Forest District, the region is prohibiting fires of all sizes on both public and private land –– an effort to prevent human-caused wildfires and protect public safety, officials said. 

In addition to campfires and open burning, fireworks, sky lanterns, burn barrels or burn cages, binary exploding targets, air curtain burners, Tiki (and similar) torches and chimineas are also prohibited. This prohibition does not include the use of stoves used outdoors for “cooking, heat or ambiance,” according to wildfire regulations, which burn charcoal briquettes, liquid or gaseous fuel, and have a flame height less than 15 cm tall.   

Anyone who lights, fuels or uses an open fire when a fire prohibition is in place or fails to comply with an open fire prohibition may be issued a ticket for $1,150 or, if convicted in court, be fined up to $100,000 and/or sentenced to one year in jail. If the contravention causes or contributes to a wildfire, the person responsible may be subject to a penalty of up to $100,000 and ordered to pay all firefighting and associated costs, according to the Coastal Fire Centre.     

For the latest information on current wildfire activity, burning restrictions, road closures and air quality advisories, visit bcwildfire.ca. The saltspringfire.com website has more local information, including a “cheat sheet” describing restrictions related to high-risk activities such as chainsawing and mechanical land clearing. 

Unmoved by an appeal, Salt Spring’s land use officials voted to uphold a staff decision that leaves a controversial shoreline erosion mitigation project at Baker Beach without development permits. 

That decision came Thursday, July 10, after a consultant team engaged by the proponent property owners came to support the project, speaking before the island’s Local Trust Committee (LTC).  

In May, through authority delegated to them by the LTC, staff had decided not to grant a permit to the project, sidelining the proposed “nature-based” climate adaptation plan that centred on erosion mitigation using non-uniform rock clusters, revegetation and application of engineered sand and gravel “beach nourishment” material at the toe of an eroding slope above Baker Beach. 

Alongside an application for a licence of occupation from the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship (WLRS) to do work within the Crown land at the shore, the Islands Trust required a permit for the project, since the land lay within a development permit area (DPA) laid out by Salt Spring’s Official Community Plan (OCP). 

In the appeal, through extensive documents and their own in-person reporting, the team addressed an itemized list of concerns staff had cited in choosing not to issue a permit for the project and warned the beach itself was in danger from the same erosion processes that threatened the proponents’ homes. 

But ultimately the LTC deferred to its own staff, noting trustees’ lack of specific scientific expertise, and to public sentiment. 

“Founded or not, public concerns are important,” said LTC chair Tim Peterson. “They are something that, as decision makers, we need to take into account.” 

Continuing a pattern of public opposition to the project, several islanders spoke on Thursday to voice their concerns over potential habitat damage from the proposed deposit of hundreds of cubic metres of aggregate materials — across more than 500 metres of shoreline — and whether a nearby Penelakut shellfish tenure would be affected. Some said they did not believe the beach was degrading at all; housing advocate Eric March said he “failed to see the public good of shutting down a public beach” to do work to protect “four wealthy property owners” from the “natural process of erosion.” 

For its part, the consultant team argued the project would protect the habitats there rather than harm them, and showed data they said indicated the erosion taking place at Baker Beach was anything but “natural.” Registered professional geoscientist and agrologist Thomas Elliot said teams had conducted extensive soil sampling and observation in and around the site — including “novel” work involving a diver offshore — and lay blame for the advanced erosion taking place at the feet of human-caused processes upstream. 

“The [natural] system is failing,” said Elliot. “There are more than 20 trees along that coastal bluff that are in a precarious scenario and [when they fall] will deposit the exact same volume [of material] the proponents are seeking to import, but with a deleterious component to it.” 

“It certainly does attract a lot of attention because of the size,” said trustee Laura Patrick, although when pressed admitted she didn’t know what a reasonable amount of material for such a project might be. “Our job is to try to interpret and understand the OCP, the objectives and the reasons these guidelines were placed in here; my interpretation is that the OCP was [envisioning] more small projects — that it was designed for one property doing something.” 

“Ultimately, our decision is about interpretation of the information that’s available to us, from your professional reporting, from our understanding and interpretation of the bylaw, and our own staff and their work,” said Peterson. “I don’t think this is easy for anyone in any part in this situation.” 

The ministry had previously indicated that if the LTC decided to uphold staff’s rejection of the permit, the province may consider disallowing the existing Crown land use application — although it noted that would not prevent proponents from submitting new application documents “for a phased approach” to the erosion mitigation, according to a letter.