Seawater Temperature and Salinity, March 2010

March 2010
Race Rocks Lightstation    Time Zone P.S.T
Observer Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific
Daily Seawater Temperature and Density Record Shore Station 

MONTH: March YEAR: 2010
Date Time Sea
Temp.
°C
Jar
Temp.
°C
Hydro- meter No. Observer Density (1.02–) Reduced *Corrected *Salinity
1 11:30 9.0 8.7 10,802 1.0238 1.0228 1.0
2 13:30 9.0 8.8 10,802 1.0239 1.0229 1.0
3 16:30 9.0 8.8 10,802 1.0238 1.0228 1.0
4 19:40 9.0 8.7 10,802 1.0239 1.0229 1.0
5 4:30 8.5 8.5 10,802 1.0240 1.0230 1.0
6 4:51 8.5 8.6 10,802 1.0237 1.0227 1.0
7 5:10 9.0 8.7 10,802 1.0237 1.0227 1.0
8 5:10 9.0 8.8 10,802 1.0239 1.0229 1.0
9 5:40 9.0 8.6 10,802 1.0237 1.0227 1.0
10 6:30 8.5 8.6 10,802 1.0238 1.0228 1.0
11 7:32 9.0 8.7 10,802 1.0238 1.0228 1.0
12 11:00 9.0 8.8 10,802 1.0238 1.0228 1.0
13 12:00 9.5 9.1 10,802 1.0239 1.0229 1.0
14 13:05 9.0 8.5 10,802 1.0238 1.0228 1.0
15 14:45 9.0 9.0 10,802 1.0235 1.0225 1.0
16 17:20 9.5 9.3 10,802 1.0242 1.0233 1.0
17 16:25 9.5 9.0 10,802 1.0240 1.0230 1.0
18 17:03 9.5 8.9 10,802 1.0242 1.0232 1.0
19 21:22 9.0 8.7 10,802 1.0239 1.0229 1.0
20 16:25 9.9 9.4 10,802 1.0239 1.0232 1.0
21 4:40 9.0 8.8 10,802 1.0238 1.0231 1.0
22 4:34 9.0 9.0 10,802 1.0239 1.0229 1.0
23 5:15 9.0 9.2 10,802 1.0241 1.0231 1.0
24 6:15 9.0 9.0 10,802 1.0249 1.0229 1.0
25 7:30 9.5 9.3 10,802 1.0240 1.0231 1.0
26 9:40 9.5 9.2 10,802 1.0240 1.0230 1.0
27 13:10 9.5 9.2 10,802 1.0239 1.0229 1.0
28 13:15 9.3 9.3 10,802 1.0238 1.0229 1.0
29 12:55 9.2 9.2 10,802 1.0239 1.0229
30 15:41 9.3 9.3 10,802 1.0239 1.0230
31 17:03 9.0 9.0 10,802 1.0240 1.0230
Mean* * 9.1 8.9 1.0239 1.0229 1.0 * *
* These calculations will be done later at D.F.O. office.Recorded by Race Rocks Marine Protected Area Guardian Ryan Murphy and students of Pearson College
Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific

Transient orcas through the reserve.

Orca: 5, ‘The group of transients that has been in the area over the weekend came by the reserve in a near carbon copy of their Sunday route. The large male breached once while in the SE end of the reserve and 2-3 times S of the reserve. The group spent about 20 minutes criss-crossing around SE rocks in apparent feeding behaviour -tail slaps, etc.).’, ‘Ryan’, ’11:45:23 ,

Elephant Seal’, 7, ‘5 females were seen hauled out on Middle Rocks; they ranged from small juveniles to large adults. They join the 2 small females here on Great Race.’, ‘Ryan’, ’16:04:03 ,

Values Input Statements from each of the Community representatives on the Race Rocks Advisory Board

Aside

Race Rocks Advisory Board resource documents
This file was for the use of the Race Rocks Advisory Board in order to make available the Values Input Statements from each of the Community representatives on the Board

Race Rocks Public Advisory Board Values Input
March 25, 2010
Past, present, future use
PEARSON COLLEGE
Lester B. Pearson College’s first significant interaction with the area was in 1977 as a location for marine biology field trips and diving. Faculty and students initiated the process of getting it preserved as an ecological reserve in 1979 and assisted BC Parks in the preparation of the Management plan. Since that time there has been a continuous record of student, faculty and staff involvement in doing ecological monitoring in the reserve and in student and visitor field trips. Pearson College has supported student research at Rocks and the faculty and students have assisted outside scientists in research projects there. (See this version with Links to Examples)
Each year it provides boat cover for the Christmas Bird Count by the Victoria Natural History Society. A college faculty member, now retired has continued to serve as Ecological Reserve warden for BC Parks since 1980. In 1997, the college took over full time management of the Ecological Reserve and the island facilities on a long term lease from BC Parks. The College has a high level of participation in R&D and energy projects such as the AXYS wind resource assessment buoy testing and the Integrated Energy Project involving solar and tidal energy for the Island. There is an ongoing program of retrofitting and enhancement of efficiency to the infrastructure through additional solar panel installations; LED and CFL lighting and battery energy storage has resulted in close to 60 % reduction in fuel consumption and resulting emissions.
It has also implemented more efficient water systems and is currently upgrading the composting toilets. The college has also had an ongoing ecological restoration program for the island in an attempt to mitigate ecological footprint of former operations on the island. It has installed and continues to run a weather station and continues the long term daily water temperature and salinity records for monthly submission to IOS. A database is maintained with observations from the ecoguardian and volunteers using remote cameras on tagged and branded marine mammals. In 2000, Pearson College secured a grant from the Millennium foundation for the installation of a LAN on the island and internet connection passing live remote controlled video and audio to the outside world by microwave. The college supports the website racerocks.com which is a non-commercial educational site continually being updated by a volunteer with contributions from staff, students, faculty and outside researchers. This website is used worldwide as a distance education tool, with several specific curriculum programs using the resources contained on the website.
DIVING
Recreational snorkelling/diving since 1900. Present/future use includes – deeper and longer dives, worldwide attention with pristine environment; (decrease in number of non-guided trips) 50% of dive tour customers are boat owners. Trend is toward guided dives (the expertise is valued). Educational briefing supplied with a guided trip. Not a large increase in # of divers (challenging climate in which to dive). Research area potential – archaeology, ecosystem, biology. Fewer safety / distress calls. Limited commercial diving operations.
RECREATIONAL BOATING Continue reading

Race Rocks Marine Protected Area DFO Expenses 2002-2010

“If we are to learn from past mistakes in the Process of Creating Marine Protected Areas, then it must be documented transparently so that stakeholders might have an opportunity to inform themselves.”

The complete version of this report can be found complete with graphs at
https://racerocks.ca/racerock/admin/atipreport/atip.htm

Background and Rationale for this report:
When we started the MPA designation Process for Race Rocks in 1999, I believe we all went into it assuming that the process of community involvement and stewardship would be one that could be a model of how ordinary people could help to achieve ecological conservation. Further to this, they could play a valuable role in assisting governments in creating one regime, devoid of jurisdictional barriers for the management of humans to ensure ecological sustainability of this unique resource. It was also hoped, that there would be unprecedented transparency in the process. At the time there was no reason that it could not become a template for the establishment of a network of Marine Protected Areas.

The Initial MPA Advisory Process involving the Race Rocks Advisory Board ended in 2002 when the consensus of the Board was not accepted by DFO office in Ottawa, and the resulting modified document gazetted was repugnant to RRAB members as well as First Nations. The Master’s Thesis of Sean Leroy provides a good overview of why this process had failed. Continue reading

Summary Report Race Rocks Public Advisory Board Meeting #3

Summary Report : Race Rocks Public Advisory Board Meeting #3

 Purpose: The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of observations and recommendations in support of the RRPAB moving forward.

Issues and Observations : The RRPAB is a representative group of stakeholders who have been providing advice on the designation process. Many of these stakeholders have been involved with Race Rocks for many years, including the failed attempt to obtain designation about ten years ago.

This history has led several board members to become impatient with the current process and they have begun to question the benefits of continued investment in the designation process. Some members have been questioning the wisdom of the significant financial investments (DFO) to date to achieve the MPA designation under the Oceans Act.

All members agree that MPA designation would add a greater margin of protection as well as a vehicle for funding management of the MPA.

Recent correspondence between members indicates that the Pearson College, Shaw Ocean Discovery Centre and the RR Eco-Reserve (RaceRocks.com) have significant interest in Race Rocks as a platform for programming. In at least one case there are significant financial pressures on continued programming.

DFO has established a separate, parallel consultation process with First Nations, as they are legally required to do so. These are moving more slowly than several board members would like. Also, only three of the four identified First Nations that hold an interest in Race Rocks are participating in the parallel process. This has been identified as a significant risk that might delay/derail the designation process and steps are being taken to address this risk.

Some board members have expressed concern that the DFO staff who are leading / managing the designation process have changed often and believe this has delayed progress toward designation.

Based upon previous experience, DFO is reluctant to set a definitive timeline for completion of the designation process, as they can not control the level of involvement of all interested parties. This is causing frustration for some members.

Recommended Consultation Objectives Moving Forward

Given that a definitive timeline for the designation process can not be established at this time, it is suggested that the following objectives be considered for the RRPAB moving forward.

Objectives

Outcomes

Outputs

Status

To review progress to date.

 

Board is up-to-date and supportive of actions and progress to date

Members see how they have influenced progress to date

Members understand how the progress to date supports future steps in the designation process and their role in it

Power Point presentation outlining the current situation and way forward.

An overview of the OAR (includes SECOA, EOAR, and Cultural Overview) structure and status of development

Informative text to be placed on the website (maybe the minutes of the meeting and the presentation)

Full review conducted during meeting #3. Members were provided with an overview of the process, as defined by the Oceans Act, and where Race Rocks is within that process

 

The Mtg #3 evaluation indicates that the Board is up-to-date

Review the status of the Board TOR approval process The role of the Board within the designation process is clarified.

Members know that DFO staff have taken the TORs to senior management for approval and they will be finalized soon.

Members know that staff have heard and are attempting to integrate their ideas into the TORs.

Confirm the roles of the Board in the designation process.

TORs are signed off by the PAB and DFO. A full report on status will be provided during meeting #4
To provide an overview of the designation process moving forward, from the current situation to gazetting of the final regulations. Members have an opportunity to question and discuss major milestones and the timeline involved in the designation process

Members are supportive of the proposed approach.

Graphic summary (“wiring diagram”) of designation process and brief summary, in order that members can communicate the process to their constituents / members.

Presentation made during meeting #3

Minute minutes and attachment provide future reference

Request for “wire diagram” is pending

From #3 evaluations, clarity of process with PAB is not clear

 

 

To provide an update on the status of consultations with First Nations. Members understand the status of consultations with First Nations.

Members have an opportunity to question and discuss the current approach.

Summary of current situation and way forward for involving First Nations Summary of current situation and way forward for involving First Nations
To provide an update on the status of the Overview and Assessment Report and its components and seek input as warranted. An understanding of the Overview and Assessment Report, its function and components.

An understanding of how Board input is incorporated into the Report (conservation objective, compatible/non-compatible activities, significance of the protected ecological features, and local and traditional ecological knowledge, SECOA).

Receiving input from Board on any concerns regarding the OAR process, board input, how information is being gathered, next steps.

Update on Overview and Assessment Report.

List of Board-suggested inputs to the supporting documentation.

List of Board concerns / issues with the structure of the proposed documentation.

 

Update on Overview and Assessment Report.

 

List of Board-suggested inputs to the supporting documentation.

 

List of Board concerns / issues with the structure of the proposed documentation (i.e. SECOA).

 

To review and obtain input on next steps for the MPA designation process. A full and common understanding of the MPA designation process and timelines.

Ownership, support and advocacy for the designation process.

Document the differences between the current (provincial) designation process and the MPA process, including the pros and cons, the approach to transitioning between the two and any concerns held by the Board.

Document any Board questions/concerns regarding the designation process and timelines.

Establish major milestones and timeline for designation process.

A simple graphic outlining the major milestones and associated timeline.

 

Full status report provided during meeting #3

 

 

To obtain input into the first order conservation objective for the Race Rocks MPA, including, vision, conservation objectives compatible and non-compatible activities

 

A full and common understanding of the CO process

Ownership of approach by Board.

Resulting CO is reflective of stakeholder values and interests

Determine whether objective is supported unanimously or not, plus list any concerns and which members dissent

Discuss objectives that are not supported unanimously so that all participants are aware of the pros and cons

Establish a list of any follow-up information or explanations required by members.

Brainstormed (= draft) list of options for first order conservation objective.

Review list to determine compatible and non-compatible activities associated with objective

 

Values summaries have been generated by some groups

DFO has developed preliminary conservation objectives, which were well received by the PAB

More discussions required leading to definitive advice

 

Assessment of Meeting Outcomes

1. Sample Board Members – 6, DFO Project Team – 1

2. Meeting Initiation

VS

S

NS

D

Introductions

3

2

0

1

Statement of meeting purpose

0

2

1

0

Review and approval of previous minutes

0

2

1

0

Review and approval of agenda

0

2

3

2

3. Overview of MPA Designation Process

Very Satisfied

1

Satisfied

2

Not Satisfied

2

Disappointed

2

4. Review of Documents and Instruments

Very Satisfied

1

Satisfied

3

Not Satisfied

2

Disappointed

1

5. Opportunity to Ask Questions

Very Satisfied

1

Satisfied

3

Not Satisfied

2

Disappointed

1

6. Opportunity to Discuss Issues

Very Satisfied

0

Satisfied

1

Not Satisfied

5

Disappointed

1

7. Opportunity to Plan Next 6-8 Months

Very Satisfied

0

Satisfied

1

Not Satisfied

5

Disappointed

1

8. Opportunity to Provide Feedback and Input

Very Satisfied

0

Satisfied

0

Not Satisfied

4

Disappointed

3

9. Detail and Format of Presentations

Very Satisfied

0

Satisfied

4

Not Satisfied

1

Disappointed

2

10. Opportunity to Develop Advice

Very Satisfied

0

Satisfied

1

Not Satisfied

2

Disappointed

4

11. Awareness and Understanding

None Limited Some Good
Role of the Board in designation process.

1

1

5

How the progress to date supports future steps in the designation process.

1

3

3

Current status and approach for First Nations consultation.

4

1

1

1

Current status and content of the overview and assessment report.

4

2

1

The purpose of the overview and assessment report.

1

3

1

2

12. Facilitator Helped Achieve Meeting Objectives

Much Better

2

Better

4

Same

1

Worse

0

13. Useful aspects of a Facilitated Session

1. Unbiased

2. Allowed participation of DFO staff

3. Agenda and key messages written on flip charts

4. Keeping the meeting moving

5. Yes, allowed DFO to more fully participate and there were strong feelings about process and issues that were helped by having a third party present.

6. Staying on task and on time

+++

7. No personal agenda

8. Good time management

9. Defusing tension and redirecting

10. Lowering the “volume”

+++

11. Competent and capable in role

12. Periodic check ins to assess how meeting was going

13.redefining the role of DFO staff in the process

14. Facilitation could be improved

1. Arrange for information request follow-up

2. Pay more attention to the issues important to the board

3. Was not familiar with TOR

4. Kevin needed facilitator help sooner when fielding questions

5. Accommodate the interests of members not just DFO

+++

6. Did not go over ground rules

7. There were some side conversations with DFO in which it appears some decisions where made about the agenda and whether Gary would be able share what he had learned. That information needs to have been shared. Reinforces the impression that this is an tick box exercise for DFO and it does not matter what participants contribute.

8. Seek advice from advisors in future meetings

+++

9. Had to be asked to step in to manage comments

10. Better agenda design

15. Meeting Pace

Too Slow

4

Just Right

3

Too Fast

0

 

16. Able to Exchange views and Build Working Relationships

Very Satisfied

0

Satisfied

5

Not Satisfied

2

Disappointed

0

17. Held at Pearson College

Very Satisfied

4

Satisfied

3

Not Satisfied

0

Disappointed

0

18. Why Dissatisfied – Nil

19. Time of Day

Very Satisfied

1

Satisfied

5

Not Satisfied

1

Disappointed

0

20. Why Dissatisfied

1. Adjourned too early

21 Food and Refreshments

Very Satisfied

4

Satisfied

3

Not Satisfied

0

Disappointed

0

22. Why Disappointed – Nil

23. Most Important Aspects of Meeting

1. Trying to get DFO to be responsive

2. Working on values identification

3. See letter e-mailed*

4. Understanding that the members of advisory group who have done this process for a decade know so much more than the DFO AND that the DFO staff have not looked at the results of the previous advisory group.

5. Having DFO participate as participants

+++

6. Get DFO to listen

7. That some (no all) of the original advisory group are not convinced DFO is willing to offer anything towards management in the future and a reluctance to rubber stamp something meaningless

8. The use of motions for clear advice / decisions

+++

9. Need First Nations input

10.Kate did a great job of the draft objectives and if they can be integrated with the MPA objectives from 2000 this is an incremental improvement.

11. Having local DFO staff supplemented by Regional staff. Better feed back to DFO management.

 24. Least Important Aspects of Meeting

1. Obvious regurgitation

2. Designation process details

3. See letter –mailed*

4. Was the presentations by DFO because they did not link to the enormous advances that has already been made. DFO is missing an enormous opportunity and need to study the oucomes of the last process and then build then outline their process and internal process and then get every one to help them through.

5. Too much time spent on DFO updates

+++

6. That DFO and the facilitator’s need to leave exactly at 3:oo. Ferries appreciated but someone should have stayed out of respect and to learn what was of burning importance.

7. Too much time spent on DFO process

+++

8. DFOs need to control the agenda.

 25. Extent to Which RRPAB Influenced Progress

Significantly

0

Somewhat

0

A little bit

3

Not at all

3

 26. Closing Comments

1. Need real DFO input, not a cookie cutter

2. Dialogue on management objectives

3. See comments in e-mail*

4. DFO seriously needs to do a review and go and study the Race Rocks web site and the past history. This will go along way to improving the role. Great to have Kate their need a replacement ASAP and they too must do their homework. The process is unnecessarily prolonged given the amount of information that already exists. The funds budgeted for the completion of the process need to influenced by the advisory group. It is likely that this process could be finished in 1 or 2 workshops.

5. Solicit more advice from advisors

* Included with the author’s permission:

—————————————————————————————————-

April 6, 2010

Richard: Well done!, thanks .. Maybe some modification is needed on point 5. Be aware that the management plan published by BC Parks in 2001 needs very little modification, and research on gaps is already included, so there should be no delay attributed to management plan, a small modification by those who know what is going on should be adequate.

HYPERLINK  http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/mgmtplns/race_rocks/racerock.html

The science gaps require a commitment from governments to designate funds to thoroughly research the gaps.   One of the reasons for MPAs as well as Ecological reserves is to serve as benchmarks for the environment and to provide educational opportunities.
I also want to see all those at the table who have influence, Transport being one area that has not been involved but yet is essential to solve the problem of overhead airspace. We have consistently asked for representation and accountability from that sector

A further issue that I never mentioned is the need to consider this as one of the first in a network of MPAs.. The marine ecological reserve system provides as good place to start, and I know that is a major goal of parks, FER , CPAWS and others as well.  Refusal to acknowledge openly that this is one of the goals of RR MPA is to further reduce the interest and support of the rest of the conservation and ecologically sustainable use community.  It seems to me that DFO considers this is a one off, and that’s not a good plan.

Garry

Further comments by G. Fletcher
April 5, 2010
Richard
In response to your questionnaire, I don’t believe in anonymity when criticism is involved so here is my comment to the last part.
It seems that the DFO has a problem with how to handle a group of people who already have a lot of expertise in the area, and who are in general agreement of a fairly clear vision of what needs to be done.  I would go so far as to say much more than the DFO staff. The continuing changing of DFO personnel at our meetings means we are always facing a re-invention of the wheel atmosphere. The most recent appointment will only be there for a few months. How many times do they have to be told that all the resources are available on the racerocks.com website, as it is clear they are either not aware or purposely ignoring them? The lack of transparency in the real goals, intentions and unwillingness to discuss the value added that DFO can bring to the table is deplorable. I also really didn’t appreciate the lack of willingness on the part of the DFO reps to deal with the issues of the finances of the process over the last 11 years. The inability to stick with our original timetable, where we were to be finished by now is unacceptable. The goodwill of volunteers is being stretched too far. Perhaps given that DFO has frittered away a budget of almost half a million dollars in the last 11 years , with nothing done at Race Rocks to ensure its ecological sustainability is enough reason to cut the bureaucratic rubber-stamping process , bring out someone from head office who can make some real decisions and just get on with it. .   An indication from DFO that they are willing to have another meeting right away to get to the bottom of the real issues might indicate to us that they are serious. So now they suggest in MAY!

The continuing absence of First Nations representation and the omission of the Esquimalt  council in existing negotiations, let alone the expenditure of  $170,000  for nothing that has gone towards conservation of ecosystem of Race Rocks in the past 11 years makes it clear to many of us that no one is willing to really deal with the problem up front.  Keep in mind we were promised an MOU from the First Nations by last December. The inability of DFO to effectively handle the First Nations issues was made clearly evident to us when they indicated in the September meeting that they had met with First Nations and a ceremony was held to allow DFO to use the name Xwayen as part of the MPA.  This was clearly done 11 years ago, we never used the name without permission, it was given to us to use for the reserve by an elder of the Beecher Bay band. A burning ceremony was also conducted there to allow the MPA to go forward. It seems that some people have selective memory about these things. Do a thorough analysis of the record to find out the full extent of the mess that DFO has made of what seemed in 1999 to be a simple exercise.

In our September meeting we asked that some effort be made to include a Science representative. The rep from UVIC has only been able to attend once and no substitute has been named. We have therefore not had any representation of what science needs to be done to fill the GAPS in knowledge required to justify this as a MPA.  We also asked that the Department of Transport would be involved as there are many issues under their control.. also no action on that….and now the added expense of a consultant to conduct their meeting and do research on the process.

There is ambiguity in #11 about the “Overview and assessment report” as far as I am concerned no assessment report has been dealt with yet.   If overview meant the DFO presentation, given in the first two meetings if it wasn’t overview? We don’t need any more overview, just get on with it.

Since some people find it hard to get through all the documents on the RRAB web page that are relevant. At least view this one and note the date!
http://www.racerocks.com/racerock/admin/proposal/fedpropos.htm

Garry Fletcher

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PAGE

 

 

PAGE  10

Delaney and Associates Inc.

..durable solutions in a complicated world..

 

 

 

RRPAB meeting #3 minutes, March 24, 2010

This is a draft version,  The DFO version in PDF form is here: 2010-03-24

RECORD OF MEETING

Date:         March 24, 2010

Location:  Pearson College, Sooke, (Ed note:actually Metchosin,)  British Columbia

Purpose of Meeting:

         Meeting #3 of the Race Rocks Public Advisory Board

Group/Advisory Committee:

         Race Rocks Public Advisory Board

Attendees:

         Doug Biffard, BC Ministry of Environment

Chris Blondeau, Pearson College

Cathy Booler, Georgia Strait Alliance

Chris Bos, Sports Fish Advisory Board

Kevin Conley, Fisheries & Oceans Canada

Jim Cosgrove – Observer

James Dale, Wildlife Viewing Community

Mike Fenger, Friends of Ecological Reserves

Garry Fletcher, Race Rocks Ecological Warden

Duane Freeman, Department of Natural Defence

Gabrielle Kosmider, Fisheries & Oceans Canada

Dan Kukat, Wildlife Viewing Community

Kate Ladell, Fisheries & Oceans Canada

Angus Matthews, Shaw Ocean Discovery Centre

Ryan Murphy, Pearson College

Aaron Reith, First Nations Liaison

Richard Taggart, Sports Fish Advisory Board

Facilitator:

         Donald Golob – Delaney and Associates Inc.

Meeting Goal:

To provide Race Rocks Public Advisory Board (the Board) members with an update on the designation process and receive feedback on next steps.

Objectives:

To provide an overview of the MPA designation process.

To review the status of the various documents and instruments and receive Board feedback.

To plan activities of the Board over the next 6-8 months

Materials Distributed:

Meeting Agenda

November 26, 2009 RRPAB Meeting #2 Minutes

Stakeholder Values Input Document

Addendum to Stakeholder Values Input Document

Fisheries & Oceans Canada Power Point Presentation

Key Issues Discussed:

1. Welcome

Introduction and Welcome by Kate Ladell.

An acknowledgement was made to the meeting taking place on the traditional lands of the T’Sou-ke Nation, Songhees Nation and Beecher Bay First Nation.

Appreciation was expressed to Pearson College for providing the meeting venue.

The role of the facilitators in preparing the agenda, with input from Fisheries & Oceans Canada and Board members, and facilitating the meeting was outlined.

2. Introductions

Round table introductions.

3. Meeting #3 Agenda

  a. Review

The attendees reviewed the agenda with the facilitator’s guidance.

 

b. Discuss /Amend /Approve

Kate Ladell offered a point of clarification for agenda item 5  – “Structure and Status of OAR” should be a sub-bullet to the broader “Review of Progress to Date” presentation.

A question was raised over what to do if a new item that was suggested but not added to the meeting agenda, specifically an explanation of the business case / plan that DFO brings to Marine Protected Areas, specifically Race Rocks.

Kate Ladell offered a response that the business case / plan is set out through a Conservation Objective, which would be covered later in the meeting.

Kate Ladell responded we would not be having a specific discussion on the business case today, as the agenda was set based on feedback from a number of board members.  However, this discussion could take place at a meeting outside of this board meeting, or be placed on a list of agenda items for the next meeting.

This item was flagged as an “outstanding item” for later consideration.

Action Item: 10-03-01 – DFO to include a business case / plan outline on the agenda of the next meeting.

A new agenda item was suggested by a board member(ed note: Garry Fletcher) to deliver a presentation he had prepared on the finances and accountability of the Marine Protected Area process.

Kate Ladell responded that when this topic was brought up at the last meeting, the board had suggested that it did not fall within the mandate of the Terms of Reference, thus it was not placed on the agenda based on previous input from the board. Another board member expressed that there should be room to include this on the agenda. This item was flagged as an “outstanding item” for consideration at the end of the meeting if time permitted, alternatively at the next meeting.

A request was made for an update on the status of the TOR

Kevin Conley informed the board this would be covered later in the agenda.

Meeting #2 Minutes

Review

The board was asked to review the minutes for any amendments

Discuss/Amend /Approve

Gabrielle Kosmider proposed the following:

MinutesCorrection to Minutes: change “Jacques Martin to Jacques Mark”.

Suggested Addition to Minutes (by a Board member): “It was suggested that designation could not proceed without a prior commitment from DFO regarding future financial and regulatory support for a MPA at Race Rocks in partnership with BC Parks, First Nations and Pearson College. No group discussion took place around this statement.”.

DFO’s response to the above addition to the minutes to be reflected in the March 24, 2010 minutes:

DFO Response: We acknowledge the concerns about having adequate funding and resources upon designation.  Once designation is achieved and a management plan has been developed, identification of appropriate resources will be an important next step.

The facilitator reviewed meeting etiquette and a reminder to treat people with respect, to let people finish talking and to deal with issues calmly, as there is a lot of passion surrounding the topic of Race Rocks.

No other additions or amendments were offered.

Action Items were reviewed.  Outstanding Action Items will be carried over and addressed before the next meeting, and are reflected in the Action Log.

Review of Progress to Date

Presentation – Review of Progress to Date

Kevin Conley presented.

Kevin Conley addressed concerns over designation timelines.  Timelines initially expressed were the intent.  A number of challenges were encountered.  DFO has developed a project management plan for Race Rocks which has resulted in more realistic timelines.  There is no intention to delay designation.

Kevin Conley explained the purposed of the “Triage Questionnaire”, which is a document to be completed by DFO, based on Advisory Board input, to inform what concerns exist.

The TOR has been brought forward internally in DFO for approval.

Action Item: 10-03-02 – TOR to be circulated to Advisory Board and posted on the Consultation Secretariat webpage upon approval.

A board member expressed some concern that the boundaries presented and those agreed upon by the Board might not be the same.

Upon seeing a slide of the boundary, another board member commented that the image on screen was correct, and that there was agreement on this boundary from the last meeting.

Action Item: 10-03-03 –  Kevin Conley to send out a map that shows only the proposed MPA boundary for confirmation.

A board member requested clarification on frequency and total number of board meetings to occur.

Initially (when March 31, 2010 was intended to be the completion of the Board’s role), there were to be 4 meetings.  Now there is a date of March 31, 2011 for completion of the Board’s role and the TOR indicates bi-monthly meetings, which is a large time commitment.

Recommendation from the Board: For the Board to meet as needed, versus bi-monthly.

Action Item: 10-03-04 –  DFO is to provide updates via email the Board on a timely basis, so that they can report to constituents.

A discussion took place on the tenure of the Board.  The commitment of the Board to be in place until the designation is complete shows the commitment of the people here to the process.

Kate Ladell clarified that at the end of the process, this Board will be disbanded and a new Board will be formed to provide management advice.  Members of the pre-designation board will be invited to attend if they are interested.

An interest in carrying on with the process was expressed by some Board members.

A Board member inquired if there would be another chance to view the TOR

It is DFO’s understanding that the TOR was discussed at the November 2009 meeting, and agreed upon.

Another Board member expressed that the Board had not seen the final version.

A Board member expressed a desire to see a “wiring diagram” to see how the Advisory Board and First Nations consultation processes take place in relation to each other and how they are connected, including clarification of flow of information and how decisions are made.

Action Item: 10-03-05 – DFO to add as an agenda item providing an explanation and clarification of the First Nations and Advisory Board Processes, including how they are linked (where advice goes and reporting back).

A Board member inquired as to whether Racerocks.com could be used to post minutes and other documents relating to the current designation process. The point was made that it would be convenient for users and allow for continuity due to the documentation of past processes on Racerocks.com.

Kate Ladell indicated that the DFO Consultation Secretariat is effective at getting final documents posted and that another option would be to include documents from Racerocks.com on the DFO website as well.

Action Item: 10-03-06 –  Kate Ladell to confirm with DFO Communications whether posting Race Rocks DFO documents to Racerocks.com is possible.

The facilitator inquired as to how the Board felt about information has been presented so far in meeting

Overall response good.

Kevin Conley presented an outline of the Overview and Assessment Report

The Values Input table has been valuable for filling in gaps

There were some comments on the Draft Socio-economic and Cultural Overview and Assessment (SECOA) from the last meeting.

DFO needs to consult the Board to ensure the correct contacts are made to finish the Socio-economic component.

For the Cultural component:

DFO will be working on the First Nations component this fiscal year.

The Values Input document will inform the other cultural and historical aspects.

Recommendation of the Board: The Socio-economic component is not sufficient and is flagged as needing some work.  DFO to draw expertise from Board and provide funding to complete socio-economic component.

There is lots of expertise around the table

Could we draw on expertise around the table and provide funding for someone to complete the socio-economic component?

Action item: 10-03-07 – Board members to prepare a recommendation to state this.

A Board member raised a question regarding where the Wright and Pringle document fits into Overview and Assessment process.

Kevin Conley explained that this Overview and Assessment is an update to the Wright and Pringle document (e.g. Rockfish Conservation, Species at Risk Act)

The process of the overview, regulatory processes, etc. have changed in the meantime.

Board members expressed concern with gaps in research:

Will there be a fisheries study?

Will there be an invertebrate study?

Action item: 10-03-08 –  Board members to prepare a recommendation that gaps be identified and prioritized and a commitment be made to research.

A board member recommended that historical aspects be added to the SECOA to capture the interesting history.

150 years since tower was erected

Navy’s anniversary

Approach and status of First Nations consultation

Kevin Conley/Aaron Reith presented.

Aaron Reith recognizes the efforts of Gordon Curry, Glen Rasmussen and Kevin Conley in relationship building.

The MOU that is being developed must be signed and accepted by both parties.  It involves DFO and the T’Sou-ke Nation, Songhees Nation and Beecher Bay First Nation.

The proposed MOU was submitted to DFO on January 4, 2010 and on March 18, 2010 DFO provided recommendations to First Nations.

In April 2010 there will be a face to face meeting between DFO and the three First Nations regarding the MOU.

Esquimalt FN is not involved in the MOU:

Kevin Conley is trying to arrange a meeting.

He has notified DFO’s Aboriginal Affairs staff for assistance in engaging Esquimalt FN.

Aaron Reith indicated that T’Sou-ke Nation, Songhees Nation and Beecher Bay First Nation have indicated they want to be engaged in this manner:

It has yet to be determined how Esquimalt FN would like to be engaged.

A board member recalled that the best meeting they have had with First Nations took place on Race Rocks.

Pearson College welcomed everybody to another meeting on Race Rocks.

Aaron Reith appreciates the comments and will bring them forward.

Board members expressed concerns with Esquimalt FN not participating in the MOU.

Kevin Conley explained they have not expressed interest in participating in this manner.

Kate Ladell explained that DFO needs to clarify how engagement has proceeded with Esquimalt FN in the past and needs to do more work to ensure engagement moves forward.

Action Item: 10-03-09 – DFO to review and report on progress with Esquimalt First Nation with respect to consultation.

Board members expressed concerns that this process will lead to similar challenges from the last process:

Concerns that there will be inadequate First Nations involvement – this needs to be addressed.

Kevin Conley expressed that DFO is aware of this and are actively trying to find a venue and find out their interests.

Dan Kukat will be seeing Chief Andy Thomas at a Victoria Harbour Authority meeting on March 25, 2010

Action item: 10-03-10 – Dan will report any information back to the Board.

 

Overview of the designation process

 

Presentation – Steps in the regulatory process

Kevin Conley presented.

Race Rocks AOI is currently in the “Overview and Assessment” stage.

This stage involves lots of work, but informs the rest of the process.

The regulatory intent will be taken to the Board for review.

In the previous process, concerns were brought up in the regulatory drafting stage.

Kate Ladell and Kevin Conley outlined the DFO decision making process.

There is a lot of simultaneous communication, reporting and feedback that needs to happen within and between the Region and National Headquarters (Ottawa).

Can make for difficulties in getting information in a timely fashion.

A Board member raised a question of whether management of an MPA goes through a similar process for decision making.

Kate Ladell explained the designation is a regulatory activity that must be approved by the Minister, whereas a Management Plan requires Regional Director General approval with Assistant Deputy Minister concurrence.

Once the MPA is into management phase, it becomes an operational responsibility; South Coast Area will be responsible and it will be managed by the Nanaimo Oceans staff.

A Board member questioned what would happen if the Advisory Board did not see any value in a MPA and recommended against it.

Kate Ladell suggested DFO would reassess based on the Advisory Board recommendation and other interests such as First Nations.

A Board member expressed that he was still waiting to be convinced that there was value added by this process:

Part of the advisory role is to comment on how much money is being spent on this and he feels that it is too much

He still feels like he is back at the MPA “yes” or “no” stage

He feels that Parks Canada’s National Marine Conservation Area designation would provide much better protection

He is speaking on behalf of his constituents

Another board member supported this view and also questioned what the added value was:

He feels that money could be better spent on what we already know is protecting and is working

Is there a paper on why we are pursuing this?

Action Item: 10-03-11 –  DFO will research the steps and rationale leading to the previous decision to pursue MPA designation.

A Board member offered that proximity was one reason

To showcase what an MPA could do

Provide a regulatory mechanism for protection

Doug Biffard explained that the province put Race Rocks forward as a 1998 effort to develop a joint MPA strategy

The provincial designation is not strong enough to meet the objectives of the Ecological Reserve

Looking for improvements on conservation measures (e.g. marine navigation (wake, anchors), impacts on birds)

Fisheries closures have to be renewed annually

This could be passed over with an error of a Fishery Manager or changes within DFO, without consultation with the province

Kate Ladell explained that DFO’s approach to establishing MPA’s has changed since 2001

Now looking at strategic networks of MPAs; have been criticized for taking a “one-off” approach in the past.

Race Rocks could be perceived as falling into this one-off category, However, it needs to be considered in the context of a network: Currently we only have 2 Oceans Act MPAs – Endeabour Hydrothermal Vents and Bowie Seamount, both of which are far offshore.  The other proposed Area of Interest is the Hecate Strait Glass Sponge Reefs – also offshore and very deep.  Race Rocks would be the only coastal protected area, thus providing a significant ecological value-added to the Pacific Region MPA network.

Doug Biffard disagrees with the “one off” description:

Race Rocks was one of 100+ areas recommended for raising the level of conservation protection across coast

Race Rocks was to be the first, the next step was to do ~20 at a time.

Kate clarified that she did not think Race Rocks was a “one off”.

There are four clear objectives for Race Rocks in the Oceans Act

Kevin Conley stated that organisms in the water column are not necessarily conserved comprehensively by fisheries closures.

A Board member expressed that for 30 years someone from Race Rocks has been approaching everyone taking something out of the water

This has been working fine

We are putting forward a regulatory basis for what is already being done

Action Item: 10-03-12 – DFO to send out a web link for the Oceans Act.

A Board member questioned what regulations will be put into place when designation happens

Board discussions, such as Compatible and Incompatible Activities will inform these

A Board member expressed concern at Pearson College ability to continue to fund the Ecoguardian and Race Rocks

Worried about short term sustainability, let alone long term.

Don’t want to end up with a MPA with no funding associated with it

This was supported by another Board member

Frustration with how long the process is taking, resources given to the process of designation and concerns about sustainability were expressed.

MPA vision and conservation objectives

 

Review of current status

Presentation by Kate Ladell

The core of the MPA is the Conservation Objective

COs for some Oceans Act MPAs have been criticized as being too vague

Presentation of a very high level, very draft first order Conservation Objective

Has not gone through any internal process

Derived from input from Board, examples from other MPA’s

Wanted something meaningful for Race Rocks

Looked at reoccurring themes from the Values Input document, Ran a word frequency analysis. The result is very draft and will likely change

Trying to get a first order conservation objective to get at broad conservation values, but with a level of specificity to get at measurable values.

Comments and observations

A Board member asked whether education, awareness and public values could be part of a conservation objection, or is it only biological?

In this case, almost an urban MPA (high webpage traffic, ecoeducation, marina, sportsfishing)

DFO is urged to look at people impacts, not only biology

Kate Ladell mentioned we need to remember what the mandate of the Department is when crafting a CO for an Oceans Act MPA:

Does not include education and outreach

A Board member expressed that the Conservation Objective’s first statement sounded very negative

Why not just put a fence around it to prevent from human modification?

Would like to see protecting the Race Rocks marine ecosystem by education and promoting responsible use

A Board member expressed concern that research would not be allowed

This area should be used as a natural benchmark

We are trying to get towards sustainability

We need benchmarks to understand ecological sustainability

Action Item: 10-03-13 – DFO to put out Draft Vision and First Order Conservation Objective as a working document

Action Item: 10-03-14 – DFO to review the 2000 Proposal document to consider the conservation objective documented there in updating the vision and conservation objective.

Action Item: 10-03-15 – DFO to check with Rebecca Reid, Regional Director, Oceans, Habitat and Enhancement, on the addition of the “human” component to the CO; does this fit with the mandate?

Next steps for the Board

Aspects requiring Board input

Kevin Conley delivered a presentation

Discussion / preferred timeline

An individual board member reminded DFO of a previous Board recommendation that the management plan be revisited from the last process to see what the Board can draw from it, including Pearson College Management for the last 12-13 years

A Board member expressed a need to see how First Nations will fit into the management plan

Kevin Conley explained that there is text in the Agreement that speaks to integration with the Board

This suggests agreement both with First Nations and the Department that this is where we want to be heading

A Board member suggested extending the meeting because he feels that DFO need to be clear about explaining the value added, that it keeps being glossed over, and that DFO needs to understand this is a priority

This item was not on the original agenda and adequate time for a complete discussion was not available..

There was an inability to extend the meeting as requested as members had to leave due to prearranged travel reservations.

The option was provided to those who wanted to stay later to see the presentation.

Recommendation: DFO provide a presentation on why this MPA is a positive benefit

A Board Member offered that anyone interested in seeing a report that he prepared on DFO expenditures, please stay after the meeting

He had hoped it would be discussed today, but we ran out of time and he feels that it keeps getting dropped as an agenda item

Another Board member suggested that the Board put this as a presentation for the next meeting.

The option was provided to those who wanted to stay later to see the presentation.

Action Item: 10-03-16 – DFO include presentation by Garry Fletcher of expenditures on Race Rocks on the agenda next meeting.

 

Adjournment

Action Items:

Log Number Responsible Action Status
09-11-01 DFO Investigate lower than 300m flights over Race Rocks as part of the DFO creel survey. (carried over)
09-11-02 DFO Ask for federal agency input to the table
09-11-03 Veronica Lo Consult with other ENGOs and resubmit ENGO input (carried over)
09-11-04 RRPAB Review completed Values Input document prior to next meeting (carried over)
09-11-05 RRPAB Finalize Values Input document at next meeting (carried over)
09-11-06 DFO Once RRPAB approved Values Input document, circulate to RRPAB members to distribute, as appropriate. (carried over)
09-11-07 DFO Follow up on non-sectoral activity entries (carried over)
10-03-01 DFO DFO to include a business case / plan outline on the agenda of the next meeting.
10-03-02 DFO TOR to be circulated to Advisory Board and posted on the Consultation Secretariat webpage upon approval.
10-03-03 DFO Kevin Conley to send out a map that shows only the proposed MPA boundary for confirmation.
10-03-04 DFO DFO is to provide updates the Board on a timely basis, so that they can report to constituents.
10-03-05 DFO DFO to add as an agenda item providing an explanation and clarification of the First Nations and Advisory Board Processes, including how they are linked (where advice goes and reporting back).
10-03-06 DFO Kate Ladell to confirm with DFO Communications whether posting Race Rocks DFO documents to Racerocks.com is possible.
10-03-07 RRPAB Board members to prepare a recommendation to state this (w.r.t to Socio-Economic Report)
10-03-08 RRPAB Board members to prepare a recommendation that gaps be identified and prioritized and a commitment be made to research
10-03-09 DFO DFO to review and report on progress with Esquimalt First Nation with respect to consultation.
10-03-10 Dan Kukat Dan will report any information back to the Board (w.r.t. conversation with Chief Andy Thomas)
10-03-11 DFO DFO will research the steps and rationale leading to the previous decision to pursue MPA designation.
10-03-12 DFO DFO to send out a web link for the Oceans Act.
10-03-13 DFO DFO to put out Draft Vision and First Order Conservation Objective as a working document
10-03-14 DFO DFO to review the 2000 Proposal document to consider the conservation objective documented there in updating the vision and conservation objective.
10-03-15 DFO DFO to check with Rebecca Reid, Regional Director, Oceans, Habitat and Enhancement, on the addition of the “human” component to the CO; does this fit with the mandate?
10-03-16 DFO DFO include presentation by Garry Fletcher of expenditures on Race Rocks on the agenda next meeting.

Recommendations/Decision(s) Made/Deferred:

Recommendation from the Board: For the Board to meet on an “as-needed’ basis, versus bi-monthly

Recommendation from the Board: The socio-economic component of the OAR is not sufficient and is flagged as needing some work.  DFO to draw expertise from Board and provide funding to complete socio-economic component. (Board members to provide clarified recommendation)

Recommendation from the Board: DFO provide a presentation on why this MPA is a positive benefit

Contact:

DATE”M/d/yyyy” 4/1/2010                                                PAGE 11

 

 

Posted in MPA

Saxidomus giganticus: butter clam- The Race Rocks Taxonomy .

Saxidomus gigantea by Ryan Murphy, April, 2010
This is a common intertidal clam, usually however not found in an ecosystem such as Race Rocks, but rather on sandy or mud beaches. Find the other invertebrates in the image also . Chitons, a top snail, and the tentacles of a sea cucumber.

 
Domain Eukarya
Kingdom Animalia
Phylum Mollusca
Class Bivalvia
Subclass Heterodonta
Order Veneroida
Family Veneridae
Genus Saxidomus
Species gigantea (Deshayes,1839)
Common Name: Buttter Clam

taxonomyiconReturn to the Race Rocks Taxonomy
and Image File
pearsonlogo2_f2The Race Rocks taxonomy is a collaborative venture originally started with the Biology and Environmental Systems students of Lester Pearson College UWC. It now also has contributions added by Faculty, Staff, Volunteers and Observers on the remote control webcams. March 15 2010- Garry Fletcher

History of Communications from Race Rocks

This list of signals was used for communication with Esquimalt and Fort Rod Hill prior to radio communications Link to communications file  I especially like the one for "Man-of-War" in sight !

Signals used for communication with Esquimalt and Fort Rodd Hill prior to radio communications

The microphone used in the radio room for weather and radio communications.

The microphone used in the radio room pre-1960 for weather and radio communications.

This keypad was used for the telegraphic communications in Morse Code over the radio in the early years.

This keypad was used for the telegraphic communications in Morse Code over the radio in the early years.See link to communications

n this picture, taken before 1976, the radio tower for communications, (VHF?) appears on the left hand side. On the right side are the guy-wires for the radio beacon.

In this picture, taken before 1976, the radio tower for communications, (VHF?) appears on the left hand side. On the right side are the guy-wires for the radio beacon.

rectifier

Rectifier

beacon

Radio Beacon

radiobox1

GE Radio.. with label—->

sinclairradio

Sinclair Radio Labs label

Some time in the 1980’s the Coastguard installed a Radio network which connected the lightstations. It wasn’t until the late1980s that VHF radios became the method of communication at Race Rocks. In 2000, with the millennium project, Lester Pearson College installed the V(oice) O(ver) I(nternet) P(rotocol) installed at Race Rocks. This provided, through a microwave link to the Lester Pearson College phone exchange, the first regular telephone service to Race Rocks. See the technology index.

In March 2010, I had a conversation with Trevor Anderson about the radio communications when he was at Race Rocks from 1966 to 1982.. Below are some of his thoughts about communications at that time.
The radio beacon at Race Rocks came under a different government department. They had installed a small generator for the beacon alone. The same applied for the radio equipment.
The Sequential radio beacon: Before the days of GPS, ships at sea along the Strait of Juan de Fuca had available in some areas a position fixing system which relied on a radio signal broadcast from a series of shore stations. There were 6 stations broadcasting from radio beacons in the Juan de Fuca /Georgia Strait area. Five were located at American sites and Race Rocks was the only one broadcasting from Canada on that frequency . Some of the other stations on the circuit with the radio beacons were at Port Angeles, Neah Bay, and Shelter Island. There was a non-directional wire antennae from the engine room where the radio was housed. The 6 stations were all on the same frequency. Each station sent out a Morse code letter ( From Race Rocks it was the letter J in Morse code) every 6 minutes, so each station had 1 minute per station when the code was broadcast in sequence. This relied of course on accurate timing, and Trev said that they had a wind-up clock which would occasionally go out. Then it wasn’t long until the Americans were phoning to alert him.
For Canadian Coastguard communications there was an AM radio network for the Lightstations all up and down the Coast. Weather reports were broadcast from Prince Rupert to Race Rocks on the 1850 frequency. I asked Trev if that network could be used for lightkeepers to talk to other stations, he said ” Only after midnight and then the Coastguard didn’t approve of that.”One of the problems with operating radio broadcasting equipment was that the radios operated by large tubes which would frequently need to be replaced, so Trev said his radio repair kit was always handy. He came with good radio skills however as he had been trained in communications when he was in the Second World War. He was the communications officer aboard a Lancaster Bomber which was shot down over the Mediterranean Sea when flying missions with the British Air force in North Africa. To this day he and his group from the Canadian Air Force who were assigned to work with the British in North Africa, have gone pretty well unrecognized for their heroic missions. He also has an incredible story of his miraculous escape through the window of his radio room of the bomber.Garry Fletcher, March, 2010

Rhamphocottus richardsonii: Grunt Sculpin–The Race Rocks Taxonomy

Rhamphocottus richardsonii, the Grunt Sculpin– Image by Adam Harding

 

 

This small sculpin ( up to 9cm) is rarely seen or photographed at Race Rocks, but it is probably quite common. It walks on its pectoral fins.
Domain Eukarya
Kingdom Animalia
Phylum Chordata
Sub-Phylum Vertebrata
Class Actinopterygii
Order Scorpaeniformes
Family Rhamphocottidae
Genus Rhamphocottus
Species richardsonii
Common Name: Grunt Sculpin
(Gunther 1874)

 

Other Members of the Class Actinopterygii (bony fish) at Race Rocks 
taxonomyiconReturn to the Race Rocks Taxonomy
and Image File
pearsonlogo2_f2The Race Rocks taxonomy is a collaborative venture originally started with the Biology and Environmental Systems students of Lester Pearson College UWC. It now also has contributions added by Faculty, Staff, Volunteers and Observers on the remote control webcams.

2010 Adam Harding (PC)