Monthly Archives: May 2010

RRAB Agenda and Minutes of Meeting #4 May 28 2010

Posted on by

MEETING NOTES
Race Rocks Public Advisory Board Meeting #4
10:00 – 15:00, 28 May 2010
Pearson College, Victoria, British Columbia

 Preliminary Agenda: 2010-05-28

PDF version  of this document: 2010-05-28

Meeting Goal:
To receive feedback and input for the Race Rocks Public Advisory Board (the Board) in order to move the designation process forward.

Objectives:

  1. To review the status of Board operations.
  2. To finalize a number of designation inputs / instruments.
  3. To provide an opportunity for DFO senior management to be involved in discussions.

Attendees:

Doug Biffard, BC Ministry of Environment
Chris Blondeau, Pearson College
Kevin Conley, Fisheries & Oceans Canada
James Dale, Wildlife Viewing Community
Mike Fenger, Friends of Ecological Reserves
Garry Fletcher, Race Rocks Ecological Warden
Darcy Gray, University of Victoria
Hilary Ibey, Fisheries & Oceans Canada
Sabine Jessen, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, BC
Gabrielle Kosmider, Fisheries & Oceans
Dan Kukat, Wildlife Viewing Community
Kate Ladell, Fisheries & Oceans Canada
Angus Matthews, Shaw Ocean Discovery Centre
Ryan Murphy, Pearson College
Rebecca Reid, Fisheries & Oceans Canada
Aaron Reith, First Nations Liaison
Danielle Smith, Department of Natural Defence
Richard Taggart, Sports Fish Advisory Board and Boating Public
Tomas Tomascik, Parks Canada Agency Canada
Facilitator: Richard Delaney – Delaney and Associates Inc. Items for Discussion

1. Welcome

  • –  Thanks for coming
  • –  Recognize the T’Sou-ke Nation, Songhees Nation, and Beecher Bay First Nation
  • –  Recognize important input of advisors
  • –  Appreciative of your presence today and goal today is to focus on designation of Oceans Act MPA
  • –  There is more work to be done – important to be clear on what task is that we’ve set for ourselves – what the role of DFO is versus the role of Advisory Board, role of other governments, role of First Nations
  • –  Thanks to Pearson College for hosting

2. Introductions

Round table – refer to list of attendees

3. Meeting #4 Agenda

a. Review
– Note that following last meeting, facilitator Richard Delaney interviewed 8 or 9 board members, conducted evaluation and tabled recommendations for board operation to try and streamline/economize on peoples’ time

b. Discuss / amend / approve
Adopted with the following additions:
o First Nations update
o Terms of Reference discussion (including changes)
o DFO Race Rocks budget overview for this group

4. Meeting #3 Minutes – discuss comments / amend / approve

  • –  Note that comments pertaining to the DFO response to the addition to the November 2009 meeting minutes were reflected in the March 2010 minutes – this was agreed upon by the Board so that the response would not be reflected as a rebuttal in minutes.
  • –  Recommendation to have the summary that Dan Kukat provided at the March 2010 meeting of Action Items for Board Members and DFO (an itemized list) added to the March 2010 minutes.Review of Action Items:
    reviewofactionitems2

reviiewodactionitems1

During review of this action item, the following discussion occurred:

  •   A Board participant expressed concern with the status of DFO’s Oceans website and identified the value of Racerocks.com in providing a complete record for the Race Rocks MPA
  •   Identified need for public transparency and a means to notify each other when documents are created that might
  • affect the designation process.

o Gabrielle Kosmider was identified as a contact for any new/updated documents.

  •   Identified importance of minimizing confusion around status of documents.
  •   Board agreement: Drafts must be marked as “draft”, if posted on Racerocks.com.

5. First Nations Update

  • –  DFO and First Nations Memorandum of Understanding has been signed by Chiefs of T’Sou-ke Nation, Beecher Bay First Nation and Songhees Nation and the Regional Director General of DFO, Pacific Region.
  • –  Chiefs understand there are concerns from Board regarding the level of commitment of First Nations to process – therefore the MOU will be released to DFO today.
  • –  DFO is pursuing a meeting with Esquimalt to hear any interests they have with respect to engaging on the Race Rocks MPA process.

5. Meeting #3 Evaluation Review / Status Assessment

  • –  Evaluation looked at ToR and objectives of Meeting #3 – considered process and whether people were able to participate.
  • –  A board participant clarified that response to survey came from 6 board members and 1 DFO employee – a slim sample that may not be a true reflection of group.
  • –  In addition to the evaluation results, facilitator presented 10 process recommendations to help the Board move forward on their mandate. Facilitator will be refining his recommendations as part of the meeting follow up. Facilitator contact for comments (By July 2, 2010):o Richard Delaney – Delaney and Associates Inc. Ottawa: 613-837- 5890/Vancouver: 778-371-4073. Delaney@rmdelaney.com

– Facilitator recommended including mechanism for minute structure to concisely reflect Board recommendations, and recommendations on meeting structure, and a meeting cycle.

Action Item – 10-05-01: Board members to review recommendations from Richard Delaney’s summary report and provide feedback – he will then provide all this feedback to DFO.

6. Race Rocks Draft Recommendations

  • –  Facilitator undertook a quick exercise to quantify level of consensus over Board recommendations. Based on a “show of fingers”, there was a reasonably good level of understanding and agreement.
  • –  One participant expressed concerns with the exercise and underscored that all people who attended the recommendations meeting were in agreement.
  •   Angus Matthews provided overview/background of Draft RRPAB Recommendations document.
    • –  Some frustration identified by participants of the RRPAB that there is too much process and not enough discussion of issues.
    • –  Would have liked DFO presence and technical support at April meeting.
    • –  Interest by Board members to provide something for DFO to respond to, and document provided Board’s perspective, on their requirements for Race Rocks to become an MPA.
    • –  Appreciate acknowledgement that this is living document.
    • –  Acknowledge that Chris Bos ran meeting and Judy Scott volunteered her time to record the information.
  •   Facilitator response re: process:
    • –  Some language in document not consistent with Board value of consensus-building, but exercise gives benchmark to move forward.
    • –  Acknowledgement from Board participants that the language of the report could be reworded to better reflect the collaborative nature of the Board.
  •   Province noted that recommendations have been discussed with management. Some subtleties need to be fixed but overall this is a good piece of work.
  •   Other Board participants agreed that this is a good piece of work although some areas need more work.
  •   Concern from CPAWS – could not attend the meeting and recommendations make it seem as though it’s conditional that all these things are in place before Board will agree to go ahead with MPA. CPAWS is not in total agreement with this document, has questions around what these recommendations mean, and hasn’t yet taken this to others in ENGO community.
  •   Parks Canada did not participate in meeting;
    document good starting point. Race Rocks should be seen as part of regional network of MPAs. Agrees that language of “must and shall” needs to be changed.

    •   Discussion around “must and shall” language – some members of the Board viewed the April 14,2010 meeting as drawing a line in the sand due to discontent with progress thus far. Want to seetangible progress if to continue volunteering time.
    •   Matthews noted:
      • –  The three procedural recommendations at beginning of the document are most important.
      • –  Some agenda items coming up may provide clarity around how we address some recommendations. Board needs to understand what scope of designation and management is.
    •   University of Victoria – take some issue with wording of some of the recommendations.
  •   DFO not to provide full response to recommendations at this meeting and some recommendations will take longer than others to respond to..DFO identified questions for clarification from Board to ensure does not work off wrong assumptions.
  •   DFO general comments/clarification points on recommendations:
    • –  Hear overwhelming interest in moving forward and desire to understand end result; Appreciate effort that has gone into document.
    • –  Have done a preliminary analysis – recommendations speak to Board’s interest to clarity re: outcomes.
    • –  DFO’s work plan consistent with this vision which involves getting regulations prepared. Certain pieces of information needed from Board to develop the regulatory intent package. Note the wiring diagram which clarifies those needs.
    • –  Re: Management Plan drafting – DFO needs to do regulatory piece but can also start drafting management plan. In reviewing recommendations, identified Management Plan recommendations and will put them into an initial draft, pull out others that fit with regulations.
    • –  Note the Value-Added/ Business Case document – p. 5 Table of Contents for Management Plan. Hope that this provides some comfort and clarity to those that want to see big picture before designation.
    • –  What is it that Oceans Act MPA designation actually does? Mandate: conservation and protection of key features including fisheries, endangered species, habitats.
    • –  DFO can’t accomplish a number of these recommendations on our own, and as a Board may not be able to accomplish everything. Will be clear about what we can and cannot do.
  •   Feedback from Board participants:
    • –  DND: The MPA Management Plan will lay out operational aspects of the MPA.
    • –  DFO: The Oceans Act doesn’t impact on the jurisdiction/mandate of any other agency. Will need to work collaboratively and agree on objectives that are consistent with the Board’s views.
    • –  Board participant: How will the existing ecological reserve Management Plan be modified?o DFO Response: Management plan for a provincial Ecological Reserve is different from a Management Plan for an Oceans Act MPA. Will not be an amendment to the existing plan, although MPA Conservation Objectives should complement those for the ER.
    • –  Province: The management plan for ER is a statement of provincial interest/intent of management of that area, which goes beyond legislative requirements of the Ecological Reserves Act.
  •   Three procedural requests from the Board:

1. Recommendation in favour of designation is conditional on reaching understanding on these recommendations. Want to get all issues on table now so Board will be comfortable with management intent, prior to designation.
 DFO: DFO will start draft Management Plan and will begin to populate so Board can start to provide input.

2. Education and outreach – ecotourism has a role, and it’s an important concern that Board shares that the MPA mandate include these human values. May not be in conservation mandate but should be in MPA mandate.
 Discussion of DFO website and MPA Strategy:

– DFO clarification: DFO website referred to last updated in 2006 –MPA Strategy identified on site was a federal-provincial draft MPA Strategy in the form of a Discussion Paper, not a DFO document, and was never finalized. The Strategy proposed objectives for a MPA strategy for entire coast, some of which went beyond scope of Oceans Act MPAs and include objectives related to the mandates of other federal and provincial agencies (i.e. Parks Canada, Environment Canada, BC Parks, etc.). Old DFO website identified the objectives in this Strategy without clarifying that they were joint objectives – therefore misleading because it was unclear that these were not Oceans Act MPA objectives but objectives inclusive of several agencies’/ ministries’ mandates.

  • –  New website is clear: Oceans Act MPA objectives are tied to conservation and protection of key features including fisheries, endangered species, and habitat. Purpose of Oceans Act MPAs has not changed. DFO cannot establish Oceans Act MPAs with education/outreach conservation objectives identified in regulations, however, education/outreach are key components to managing and implementing the MPA, and should be identified/expanded upon in the Management Plan.
  • –  Draft 1998 federal/provincial strategy is currently being updated, with intent to finalize it.
  • –  Parks Canada proposed briefing for RRPAB on updated MPA Network Strategy by someone from MPAIT.
    Action Item – 10-05-02: DFO to request MPAIT provide the RRPAB with a briefing on the updated Marine Protected Areas Strategy.
  •   Angus Matthews comments:
    • –  Education and outreach is not identified in Oceans Act as a core regulatory need. DFO says it’s covered somewhere else and we support that.
    • –  When started work on Race Rocks, David Anderson said that education and outreach was part of MPA and a whole part of our buy-in was around that.
    • –  Have a desire to see education and outreach formalized.
    • –  Question whether an NMCA, not an MPA is the better tool.
  •   DFO – Education and outreach are valuable management tools for Oceans Act MPAs, they just can’t be written as conservation objectives within regulations. Refer to Gully Management Plan.
  •   Parks Canada: Race Rocks has never been and will not be considered as a National Marine Conservation Area. Education and outreach will be addressed in management.
  •   Marine Wildlife Viewing – Given the proximity to an urban area, education and outreach meets the bigger picture conservation objectives. Should use MPA as an educational tool internationally to increase awareness for Race Rocks. DFO’s response is extremely helpful, and lays out a timeline that includes starting work on draft Management Plan. Our ability to understand projected outcomes of the MPA is important. Would also like to see a draft MPA Network Strategy.
  •   DFO – the regional strategy is going up for approval internally and will then go out for external consultation. In the absence of approval, DFO will relay MPAIT briefing request.

3. Seeing final version of the regulations, before they go to Gazette.

  •   DFO – government is bound by certain constraints – there are restrictions on seeing advice to Ministers, or documents going to Parliament. Board cannot see regulations before published in Canada Gazette I, but can see all the pieces of the Regulatory Intent beforehand.
  •   Next steps for Recommendations:

– Angus to provide response in writing by Monday, he will discuss with DFO Tuesday, 10 days for other board members to provide further clarification (to Kate and Gabrielle)

  • –  DFO will respond to the document over the summer.
  • –  Recommendations will be used as a basis for developing products in the future.

7. MPA Vision/Objectives/Compatible/ Incompatible Activities

  •   DFO provided background/context for discussion :
    • –  Last meeting DFO presented draft vision and 1st order conservation objective (CO) based on values input table. Looked at recommendations document and have provided examples for 2nd order conservation objectives “unpacked” from 1st order CO. Circulated to Board; no comments received.
    • –  COs used to inform Ecological Overview which supports regulatory intent for MPA
  •   Question to Board: Feedback on the draft Vision and 1st order CO?
  •   Board discussed and provided feedback which will be summarized in the next CO document circulated to Board.Action Item – 10-05-03: DFO to revise draft Vision to reflect Board input.
  •   DFO provided overview of feedback needed from Board re: Compatible/ Non-compatible Activities Table and how it fits into process:
    • –  Table will be used to derive list of compatible and incompatible activities for MPA and develop 2nd order COs. Input will inform section of Ecosystem Overview, prohibitions or exceptions, and regulation development.
    • –  Legacy documents from past process and recommendations used to populate Table.
    • –  Desire for Board to review table and verify content.
  •   Board discussed and provided feedback which will be summarized in the next compatible/incompatible uses document circulated to Board.Action Item – 10-05-04 : Board to review Incompatible/Compatible Activities document over the next two weeks and provide input to DFO.
  •   Note a concern with rushing the process ahead – how does this connect to Management Plan?
  •   DFO response: Conservation Objectives and Compatible/Incompatible Activities feed into different components of the MPA process (i.e. Science will use this to develop monitoring protocols and monitoring plans (including knowledge gaps), regulations will be based on compatible and incompatible activities, and the 2nd order conservation objectives will be further refined into actual management objectives). Once feedback received, we can get to addressing the Board’s interests (drafting the management plan, addressing knowledge gaps, etc.) as soon as possible.
  •   Note from Aaron Reith – Synergy exists here with First Nations’ conservation objectives.

8. Expenditures to date (including budget)

 G. Fletcher provided background and rationale for report:

  • –  Concern with duplication of efforts between past and current processes and questions regarding costs to taxpayers.
  • –  Concerned with long term process of creating a protected area. Some created efficiently, some delayed.
  • –  All resources should be available to members of the Board – ongoing expenditures since 2000.
  • –  Haven’t made document public, although it exists on the website.

– There has been an ongoing budget since 1999 – was not aware of any work going on since 2001.

– Concern with amount of time to achieve MOU, how DFO tracked, reports, and budgets funds available: suggestion that Pearson College’s ongoing expenditures should have been supported during this time period.

  •   Reith clarified that costs identified in his name are not necessarily profits to him, but expenses to keep First Nations work going. His work should be classified as First Nations facilitation – must feed, provide honoraria, rent buildings, pay for firekeepers, etc. Money spent on First Nations work is good value for dollar.
  •   DND questioned purpose of presentation, seemed inflammatory in nature, emphasized that interactions between Board members need to be done respectfully, and with open communications, in order to build trust.
  •   DFO Response to presentation:
    • –  Appreciate comments. ATIP requests can lead to incomplete understanding of a complicated issue or question: existing information is provided, but may not be organized to answer specific questions. Often get an incomplete picture of the story.
    • –  Government has procedures and due process around how money is spent; Overseen by Annual Report to Parliament (reports available on website).
    • –  Since 1992, DFO in Pacific Region spends $25M (+)/year towards advancing relations with First Nations via Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy. New program funding added subsequently to fund capacity building,.
    • –  Money DFO spends on working with First Nations is worthwhile. When attributed to Race Rocks because we are talking about cooperative management in a meaningful way. The funds spent will advance objectives of Race Rocks and Government of Canada in the future.
    • –  This year: Race Rocks has a budget of $35K – Broken down into $20K for First Nations interests, $5K for meeting facilitation, $5K for a socioeconomic report to be prepared by Pearson College, and $5K towards two more RRPAB meetings. There are also some unbudgeted pieces like translation.
    • –  Overall, the Government of Canada looking to reduce deficit – need to work with what we have and make best use of our money to move the MPA forward.
  •   Note from the Board: Have already been through process once – what reports do you need? Is there a role for Board participants to review and report in terms of value for money?
  •   DFO: Reports required are presented in the table provided earlier in day (from Wiring Diagram).
  •   Note from A. Matthews re: earlier concern expressed about reasons for doing report:
    • –  What DFO is doing for Race Rocks is serving as a model for other MPAs. We want to assess $ value per hectare protected, and couldn’t assess that without Garry’s report.
    • –  Concern for many of the people on Board to figure out where this underlying mistrust came from between DFO and RRPAB.
    • –  Going forward: we need to have financial transparency.
  •   S. Jessen – When a group of people working in a public process want financial accountability –that’s not negative and helps to advocate for new resources for this type of work. If we don’t know what it costs, we can’t be effective.
  •   Facilitator closed off discussion on this item to keep the agenda on time

Terms of Reference Discussion

 There was discussion about how participants are identified in ToR in terms of categories vs. organization names.

 

– Decision: ToR to be amended to include names of organizations who participate on the Board(under the interest or sector they represent).
 Suggestion from Board participant to change wording in ToR re: Provincial interest.
-BC Parks response: Fine with wording in ToR as-is.
 There was a question from the Board re: Board role at end of year.- DFO response: Goal to get regulatory intent in by March 31, 2011. Can’t finalize Management Plan until MPA designated. Once regulatory intent is in, the Board is disbanded. Once the MPA is designated, a post-designation advisory board formed to finalize Management Plan. Understand that post-designation MPAs cost money and it is our intention to have budget for that, barring unforeseen circumstances.

  •   Decision: ToR will be amended to add reference to considering interests of First Nations – suggested language agreed upon. In the Roles and Responsibilities Section the following amendment will be made: “DFO will endeavour to engage other departments, First Nations, and levels of government as appropriate…”
  •   Amended Terms of Reference Adopted

9. Business Case/Value Added/Wiring Diagram Review / Discussion

  •   Questions on wiring diagram to go through Gabrielle.
  •   May be useful to walk through in future meeting what a regulation for an MPA looks like so that group is clear on pieces that go into regulation.
  •   Action Item – 10-05-05: DFO to include “What an MPA Regulation looks like” as an agenda item for the next meeting.

10. Next Meeting / Adjournment

  •   Vision and conservation objectives will be the focus of next meeting.
  •   Will address the Recommendations Document, draft EOAR (includes compatible and incompatible activities) and a skeleton draft Management Plan.
  •   Next meeting will be held in the fall.
  •   Anticipate two more meetings before the regulatory intent is finalized
  •   Facilitator’s evaluation of meeting:
    • –  What went well: Facilitation; beneficial to have Rebecca Reid and Kate Ladell here; objective of having management plan started; Gabrielle engaged in discussion instead of having to double task.
    • –  What could be improved: show document on screen when we are discussing. More time needed to receive advice.
  •   DFO Closing: Good progress made today. Board participation is important to the Department. Thanks to Pearson College for lunch and hosting, thanks Aaron for excellent news.
  •   Meeting adjourned.

actionitems

Kelp flies on the face

Posted on by
Screen Shot 2014-12-26 at 11.05.12 PMSwarm
May is the beginning of kelp fly season here at Race Rocks, they swarm over the island and congregate in huge dark swarms on the leeward building and rock surfaces during windy and wet periods. Unfortunately for our pinnipeds, noses, eyes, and genitals are tasty smorgasbords for these nasty little pests!

-Ryan Murphy

Female elephant seals on Middle rock

Posted on by

RM_elsealElephant seals spend much of their lives in solitude as they travel great distances around the Pacific. At Race Rocks, we see congregations of elephant seals for the breeding season (late January) with most seals staying through to the end of their moults in late May. Here, elephant seals (adult and juvenile, male and female) begin to scout around the area at the end of October. This year females arrived first and left before the males arrived. I observed two size classes of elephant seal cows: the large breeding females, and the 3 to 5 year juveniles. The cows generally sort themselves by size with larger females bullying/harassing the smaller females.

Photos by Ryan Murphy

RMfemelsealmay162010

Svelte –Photo by Ryan Murphy May 16, 2010

 

This is X201/X202 a tagged elephant seal cow whose first recorded visit to Race Rocks was October 2009. She has completed her moult but is still hanging around the reserve. Of the 10+ cows now in the reserve, she stands out as being the only one to routinely travel back and forth between the group on Middle Race Rocks and Great Race Island. She generally spends less than a week here on the main island, then 1-2 days with the others before returning. This last time, Bertha (the cow who pups here on Great Race) followed her within minutes.

 

Serpula columbiana: Red- trumpet Calcareous tubeworm–The Race Rocks Taxonomy

Posted on by

This tubeworm is seldom seen as it retracts at the smallest disturbance. Ryan took this image while diving off the north side of Great Race Rock.

rmretrumpet

Serpula columbiana by Ryan Murphy, April, 2010 

See Ryan’s underwater set on Flickr with a range of invertebrates:

Domain Eukarya
Kingdom Animalia
Phylum Annelida
Class Polychaeta
Subclass canalipalpata
Order Sabellida
Family Serpulidae
Genus Serpula
Species columbiana
Common Name:  

Red- trumpet Calcareous tubeworm
This file is provided as part of a collaborative effort by the students, faculty, staff and volunteers of
Lester B. Pearson College
May 2010
Garry Fletcher

Dodecaceria fewkesi: Fringed filament worm–The Race Rocks Taxonomy

Posted on by

This tube worm has calcareous tubes cemented together. Small blackish-brown tentacles protrude from a raised rim of the tube,

dodecfewk

Dodecaceria fewkesi by Ryan Murphy, April, 2010

See Ryan’s underwater set on Flickr with a range of invertebrates:

Serpula columbiana from the photo above along with at least two other species of Polychaete. Dodecaceria concharum Dodecaceria fewkesi and a lined chiton,a nudibranch and Balanophyllia elegans the orange cup coral along with an unknown species of crab.

Serpula columbiana from the photo above along with at least two other species of Polychaete. Dodecaceria concharum Dodecaceria fewkesi and a lined chiton,a nudibranch and Balanophyllia elegans the orange cup coral along with an unknown species of crab.

Domain Eukarya
Kingdom Animalia
Phylum Annelida
Class Polychaeta
Subclass Canalipalpata
Order Terebellida
Sub Order Cirrabuliformia
Family Cirrabulidae
Genus Dodecaceria
Species fewkesi
Common Name: Fringed filament worm
Other Annelids 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. Garry Fletcher with underwater photography of Ryan Murphy

&nbs

Arenaria interpres: Ruddy Turnstone–The Race Rocks Taxonomy

Posted on by
Ruddy Turnstone , Arenaria interpres

Ruddy Turnstone ,Arenaria interpres -See these photos  by Ryan Murphy, May 14, 2010  in his Flickr site.

In this video, the Ruddy Turnstone is seen wandering into the centre of the picture, right near the gulls and the elephant seals.Video from Remote camera 5 by GF.


Ruddy Turnstones are an uncommon migrant on southern Vancouver Island (best times in May and again in July-August). Usually between 1-3 (rarely more) get reported at this time at various waterfront sites. No doubt Race Rocks is a reliable site for this species (given that close relative Black Turnstone is so regular out there and the habitat is so suitable). Nevertheless, many local birders miss seeing this species in a given year.
(David Allinson)

The only other record of Ruddy Turnstones at Race Rocks was one individual bird observed recorded and in the Christmas Bird Count, 1978
CLASSIFICATION:
Domain Eukarya
Kingdom Animalia
Phylum Chordata
Subphylum Vertebrata
Class Aves
Order Charadriiformes
Family Scolopacidae
Genus Arenaria
Species interpres
Common Name: Ruddy Turnstone

Other Members of the Class Aves 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.
G. Fletcher

.

Cryptolepas rachianecti : Gray whale barnacles-The Race Rocks taxonomy

Posted on by

 

These barnacles were removed from the skin of the Gray Whale which was prepared for a skeleton mount at Lester Pearson College

Scientific classification e
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Subphylum: Crustacea
Class: Maxillopoda
Infraclass: Cirripedia
Order: Sessilia
Suborder: Balanomorpha
Superfamily: Coronuloidea
Family: Coronulidae
Leach, 1817
Subfamily:

Genus :

 Coronulinae
Leach, 1817

  • Cryptolepas Dall, 1872
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 152006- Garry Fletcher

Gladiolus imbricatus: Turkish marsh gladiolus

Posted on by

Gladiolus imbricatus in bloom: Originally from south-eastern Europe/Turkey, it was introduced in the garden of an early lightkeeper and has been growing unattended here for over 50 years.

rmirza2010rr

Raisa Mirza took this photo of Gladiolus imbricatus in May 2010


Kingdom: Plantae
(unranked): Angiosperms
(unranked): Monocots
Order: Asparagales
Family: Iridaceae
Subfamily: Ixioideae
Tribe: Ixieae
Genus: Gladiolus
Species: imbricatus
Other Angiosperms 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.

 

Terms of Reference on DFO website May 2010

Posted on by

Race Rocks Public Advisory Board
Terms of Reference
Introduction:
Section 35 (1) of the Oceans Act provides the authority for the designation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). An MPA may only be established for one or more of the following reasons.

The conservation and protection of:

  • Commercial and non-commercial fisheries, including marine mammals and their habitats;
  • Endangered or threatened species and their habitats;
  • Unique habitats;
  • Marine areas of high biodiversity or biological productivity; or
  • Any other marine resource of habitat as is necessary to fulfill the mandate of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

DFO is considering designating the Race Rocks marine area as an MPA for a number of reasons:

  • As a transition zone between the Pacific Ocean and coastal waters, the area is renowned for its exceptional diversity of marine life.
  • It is an area of high biodiversity and biological productivity.
  • It is important habitat for marine mammals and the area provides habitat for threatened species.


The area has cultural significance to local First Nations. There is recognition that, should a Marine Protected Area (MPA) be established, the Government of Canada as represented by DFO will work cooperatively with the First Nations in the care and management of the MPA towards a common vision for the MPA.


The Race Rocks group of islets and submerged land was designated as an Ecological Reserve in 1980 under the province of British Columbia’s legislative authority. A cooperative management relationship with the Province has been developed with Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific. DFO and BC Parks, in collaboration with First Nations, stakeholders and the public, are aiming to develop further management strategies to support conservation objectives for the area. To aid in this purpose the Race Rocks Public Advisory Board (RRPAB) has been convened with representation from a number of stakeholder groups and levels of government.


Purpose:
The purpose of the RRPAB is to provide advice to DFO regarding a Marine Protected Area designation under Canada’s Oceans Act at Race Rocks. These Terms of Reference have been developed to clarify the objectives, role and conduct of the RRPAB and its role in the consultation process for the consideration of Race Rocks as a MPA.
Once Race Rocks has been designated as an MPA the RRPAB will be disbanded. A post-designation advisory body will be established to provide advice to DFO on management of the Race Rocks MPA. A new Terms of Reference will be developed for the post-designation management advisory body.


Objectives:
The Objectives of the RRPAB are:
Provide a process for parties to exchange views and provide advice to DFO regarding the establishment of the MPA.
Ensure effective engagement from key stakeholders and community members on planning of the MPA.


Participation, Roles and Responsibilities:
In order to achieve its objectives, the RRPAB will perform the following tasks

  • provide a forum for consultation and deliberation to develop consensus-based advice to DFO. Such consensus advice shall represent the collective and individual views of the RRPAB members and the constituencies they represent.
  • delineate geographical boundaries of the proposed MPA to achieve its objectives
  • collate, analyze and summarize feedback from consultations
    provide advice to DFO on the issues and activities that may have an impact on the ecological components of the proposed MPA
  • ensure community involvement in the establishment of the proposed MPA


Participants:
The Race Rocks area is of interest to a wide range of constituents representing a broad spectrum of activities. The RRPAB represents a cross-section of interest groups and activities. The RRPAB shall be comprised of, but not limited to, representatives from the following groups:

Fisheries and Oceans Canada
BC Parks
Parks Canada Agency
First Nations
Department of National Defence
Lester B. Pearson College
Education/Outreach Community
Recreational Fisheries
Marine Wildlife Viewing
Research Community
Recreational Diving
Environmental Non-Government Organisations (ENGO)
Recreational Boating
Conservation Stewardship
All representatives must identify a lead participant and alternate. If a participant is unable to attend a scheduled RRPAB meeting, they may invite an alternate from their constituency. Participants are encouraged to invite other members of their groups to attend RRPAB meetings, with prior notification to DFO and subject to space limitations.
DFO may consider additional RRPAB members by written request from interested participants. All RRPAB members must agree to adhere to these terms of reference.


Roles and Responsibilities of Advisory Board Participants:


The RRPAB shall act solely as an advisory body to DFO. Nothing in these terms of reference constitutes authority to perform operational or management functions, or to represent or make decisions on behalf of DFO.
Participants on the RRPAB will:

  • openly provide information on their activities and the activities of the constituents they represent within and surrounding Race Rocks
  • actively participate in discussions
  • encourage all participants to contribute to discussion equally
  • offer respect for different viewpoints and attention when others are speaking
  • ask questions for clarification and mutual understanding
  • verify assumptions
  • deal with differences as issues to be discussed, not positions to be defended
  • refrain from distracting others through side conversations, cell phones off
  • make a best faith effort to work toward an agreement at the table
  • wherever possible ensure that agreements developed are acceptable to the organizations, agencies or constituents that the participant represents
  • maintain dialogue with constituencies regarding the activities and discussions of the RRPAB
  • refer media contacts regarding the activities of the RRPAB to DFO.

Roles and Responsibilities of DFO:
DFO supports the sharing of information and dialogue from the consultative process. Representatives from DFO on the RRPAB will endeavour to fairly represent the recommendations developed by the RRPAB. DFO will review the recommendations of the RRPAB, and take into account those recommendations when considering designation of the Race Rocks MPA. DFO will endeavour to engage other departments and levels of government as appropriate to adequately consider the recommendations of the RRPAB, including BC Parks in relation to their jurisdiction related to the Race Rocks Ecological Reserve.
Process for Formulating Recommendations:
Recommendations by the RRPAB will be made to DFO through a consensus-based process. The intent of this process is to provide the opportunity for all parties to participate in a manner which responds to their interests. Whenever possible, recommendations will be supported by consensus as opposed to being unilaterally imposed.
Consensus shall mean the “general agreement of all participants on a package of recommendations” and shall embody the following concepts:
Consensus does not mean total concurrence on every aspect of a recommendation, but all participants must be willing to accept the overall decision package.
If a participant withholds agreement on an issue(s), that participant is responsible for explaining how their interests are adversely affected and/or how the proposed agreement fails to meet their interests. The participant withholding consensus must propose alternatives and the RRPAB must consider the proposed alternative towards considering how all interests may be met.
Once consensus is reached on the overall package of advice, it is assumed to be binding.
If consensus is not achieved through this process, the differing recommendations will be noted in the final recommendations package, clearly identifying the levels of associated support.
Meetings:
Meetings will be held bimonthly to assess and evaluate RRPAB’s activities and input. Dates and locations of meetings will be determined by polls of RRPAB members, to identify the time and place that works best for the majority.
DFO will be responsible for arranging and providing appropriate resources for meetings. Meeting arrangements will include opportunity for RRPAB members to propose meeting agenda items for topics relevant to the RRPAB.

Meeting records will reflect all views and input discussed along with the final recommendation. In the event of a non-consensus recommendation, the record will include dissenting opinions and the rationale.
Deliverables:
The RRPAB will provide recommendations to DFO related to the designation of the MPA.
Timeline:
It is expected that the RRPAB, as outlined by these terms of reference, will complete the objectives described in 2011.

See the original terms of reference in September 2009 here: