Category Archives: Admin

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

Race Rocks Public Advisory Board 2010 Recommendations for DFO

Posted on by
April 24, 2010 (Draft 1)

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has reactivated a 1999 proposal to establish Race Rocks as a Marine Protected Area (MPA) under the Oceans Act. As a consequence, a new round of community consultations was launched in September of 2009. The RRPAB is composed of community representatives and Race Rocks stakeholders including Pearson College who presently funds and provides the Ecoguardian at Great Race, private businesses, recreational users, the education sector, research interests, the Ecological Reserve Volunteer Warden and several conservation/environmental protection groups. Various government departments and agencies at the federal and provincial levels are also included. Continue reading →

Pacific Whale Watch Association (PWWA) Specific stakeholder recommendations: Ecotourism & Education

Posted on by

(RRPAB- PWWA Input

Monday April 19,2010
780 Blanshard Street
(2nd floor Boardrom)

A) Pacific Whale Watch Association (PWWA) Specific stakeholder recommendations: Ecotourism & Education

We have included “Education” as part of our mandate because our 32 member companies consider Public Education to be the foundation of support for conservation and stewardship: People will save what they love, and our tours offer them the best opportunity to get to see, know and fall in love with this ecosystem.

In the initial round of meetings from 1998 through 2001, the responsible wildlife viewing community (made up mostly of members of the then Whale Watch Operators Association North West (WWOANW)) was able to convince most other stakeholders that we could operate within the boundary of Race Rocks Ecological Reserve with negligible impact, with special attention to avoiding disturbance of the marine mammals and birds there.

WWOANW worked closely with the Eco Warden, Pearson College and DFO to develop viewing and vessel operation guidelines specific to Race Rocks Ecological Reserve. This adaptation was in addition to and not in place of our other detailed Best Practices Viewing Guidelines for various species. The unique topography and bathymetry of Race Rocks necessitated these changes.

For example, while it has long been our aim to stay 100m away from Marine Mammals, especially pinnipeds that are hauled out, the main channel through which we can navigate at Race Rocks is less than 200m wide. As there are often sea lions on rocks or islets on either side of the main channel, it is only possible to be 75m away from both shores. The agreed upon protocol included (i) Staying in the centre of the channel; (ii) Travelling with the current as a way of minimizing both sound and wave action; (iii) Travelling at a speed that minimized wash; and (iv) Keeping passengers still as movement can disturb both birds and pinnipeds.

“Race Rocks

  1. Vessels will slow their approach to Race Rocks such that speed at 1/8th mile (220 yards) from any rock or landmass is reduced to minimal wake and wash, when practical. This Go Slow Zone extends 800 yds/m around every rock and landmass in the Race Rocks area.
  2. Vessels in the Go Slow Zone will remain as close to mid-channel as is practicable between the major rock outcroppings known as North Race Rock, West Race Rock and Helicopter Rock.( ed note: this is Middle Islands)
  3. While in the Go Slow Zone vessels will transit the area with the current whenever conditions are suitable to do so.
  4. Vessels will remain outside all of the Go Slow Zone whenever Resident, Transient or Off Shore Killer Whales are present.”

We recommend that access to Race Rocks by wildlife viewing companies operating in a responsible manner be maintained. We seek Federal, Provincial, Regional and Local Governments support and assistance to promote and increase public awareness of the ecological significance of Race Rocks.

Federal, Provincial, Regional and Local Governments can maximize the educational value of and public support for Race Rocks and other MPA’s by showing how much all levels of government care for these precious natural resources. This is a wonderful opportunity to explain and promote Canada’s Federal Marine Protected Areas Strategy.

(B) Pacific Whale Watch Association (PWWA) Shared recommendations

Boundary: As noted in PWWA’s Best Practices Guidelines, we consider what we call the “Go Slow Zone” to be the practical boundary for our operations and it extends out “800 yds/m around every rock and landmass in the Race Rocks area”. PWWA, therefore, gladly accepts the proposed Boundary as long as access in a responsible manner under a set protocol is allowed.

Restrictions and Accepted Uses: PWWA sees no reason that the uses currently allowed cannot continue.

Ongoing Science: The Boundary, Access, Restrictions, etc. must be adaptive, adjusting as new information on biomass, water quality, climate change, etc. becomes available. The first major research project will be a continuation of the cataloguing that Lester B. Pearson College has begun, and the recording of baselines for species populations, water quality, etc.

PWWA, as an association representing commercial ventures, realizes as much as any organization that such changes could have negative financial consequences for our members, but our membership remains committed to education and conservation as our primary missions.  But we also understand the effectiveness of our educational and conservation impact would be diminished by any restrictions to access. Where reductions in access are contemplated, mechanisms will have to be put in place to assist in transition of our members.

Relationships with First Nations: Mutual respect and a willingness to learn from each other must always be the hallmarks of our relationship with First Nations. We believe that formal details should be a matter of government to government negotiations.

Role of other government agencies: There are no walls or floodgates around Race Rocks, nor is there a ceiling or roof. We must be careful to get cooperation from all municipal, provincial and federal agencies to monitor and limit impact from all potential man-made events (e.g. Oil Spill, Increased Commercial Fishing in Juan de Fuca Strait, Seismic Testing, Increased airplane traffic, etc.) and natural events (e.g. virus or infection in sea lion population, relocation of prey due to Climate Change, etc.)

Overall profile of the MPA: Clearly there will be a balancing act between singing the praises and raising the profile of Race Rocks, and maintaining its integrity as an untainted ecosystem.

Protection: We foresee that greater education of students and adults will foster even greater respect for Race Rocks. Responsible stakeholders will continue to be strong advocates of Stewardship and Conservation and our presence will continue to be an efficient way to monitor human interaction, animal behaviour and changes.

Finances: This is where the business side of PWWA rears its head. We do not wish to see a major expenditure of government funds or any attempt at recouping those costs if there is no measurable increase in the conservation or stewardship of Race Rocks. A worst case scenario for us would be a massive build up of bureaucracy and expenses but only marginal improvement in how Race Rocks is promoted, operated and protected by the Federal Govenment.

Pearson College has done a magnificent job on a shoestring budget. While that is clearly not sustainable in the long-run, there are lessons in efficiency that Pearson College can provide. We see the long-term financing of Pearson College so that they can continue their work in concert with additional services from the federal and provincial government. Pearson College knows from experience what works and what needs attention. DFO should ask and listen.

Future management: Pearson College working in cooperation with DFO and B.C. Parks

Summary Report by Delaney , April, 2010 RRPAB meeting #3

Posted on by

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 dateMembers see how they have influenced progress to dateMembers 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 developmentInformative 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 processThe 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 processMembers 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 #3Minute minutes and attachment provide future referenceRequest 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 processOwnership 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 groupsDFO has developed preliminary conservation objectives, which were well received by the PABMore 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” \o “blocked::http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/mgmtplns/race_rocks/racerock.html” 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 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!  HYPERLINK “http://www.racerocks.com/racerock/admin/proposal/fedpropos.htm” http://www.racerocks.com/racerock/admin/proposal/fedpropos.htm

Garry Fletcher

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PAGE

 

 

PAGE  10

Delaney and Associates Inc.

..durable solutions in a complicated world..

 

 

 

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

Posted on by

“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

Posted on by

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..

 

 

 

History of Communications from Race Rocks

Posted on by

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