Category Archives: Admin

References on the Benefits of MPAs

Posted on by

It is important for our deliberations on the MPA to have information available on research that has been done on the benefits to the ecosystem and to fisheries enhancement when MPAs are established. Also the value of the establishment of a buffer zone for maintaining the ecological integrity of a reserve is discussed. This would reduce the likelihood of accidental incursions and would simplify enforcement activities,.
The following references provide information from the research experience gained from a number of international examples

1.The Science of Marine Reserves: PISCO 2007

This is probably the best resource available on the research that has been done on benefits of marine reserves on the web. It can be downloaded in its entirety.

http://www.piscoweb.org/publications/outreach-materials/science-of-marine-reserves
In 2007, PISCO updated The Science of Marine Reserves, an educational booklet originally published in 2002. The booklet is now presented in three versions: a U.S. version in English and Spanish, an international version in English, and a Latin American and Caribbean version in English and Spanish. The booklets are accompanied by a 15-minute video first released in 2002.
These resources provide the latest scientific information about reserves in an understandable and accessible format. They are designed to be used by natural resource managers, government officials, scientists, and the interested public.

2.Big Profit From Nature Protection:
On the BBC website from November 13, 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8357723.stm

“Money invested in protecting nature can bring huge financial returns, according to a major investigation into the costs and benefits of the natural world.”

“The new analysis takes the economists to the undersea realms of fisheries and coral reefs.
Conservation groups have repeatedly called for a vast expansion in protection for marine ecosystems, both to conserve biodiversity and as a longer-term boost to fisheries yields.
Mr Sukhdev said there was a powerful economic case for this as well.
“If we were to expand marine protection from less than 1% to 30%, say, what would that cost?
“Establishing reserves, policing them and so on, would cost about $40-50bn per year – and the annual benefit would be about $4-5 trillion.”
The benefits would come from increasing fish catches and tourism revenue and – in the case of reefs – protecting shorelines from the destructive force of storms.”

3. Marine Protected Areas Finding a Balance between Conservation and Fisheries Management.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
http://www.fathom.com/course/21701790/session3.html

Another contribution scientists have made is in identifying the value of protecting fish so that they grow large and reproduce. In the early 1990s scientists compared the fecundity and egg production of a 60-centimeter red snapper with that of a 40-centimeter red snapper. Despite the fact that the older, larger fish is only one-third greater in length than the younger fish, this increase in length translates into a twelve-fold increase in biomass. Moreover, the larger fish produces the same number of eggs as 212 of the 40-centimeter fish. This difference emphasizes how the relationship between fecundity (the number of eggs produced by a female) and fish size increases disproportionately as older fish allocate more energy to reproduction while young fish allocate more energy to growth. This means that a larger average size of fish in a population can have profound effects on the reproductive potential of that population and its ability to renew depleted populations.

4.Economics of Marine Protected Areas
FCRR 2001, Vol. 9(8)
Sumaila, U. and Alder, J. (eds). 2001.Economics of Marine Protected Areas.
A Conference held at the UBC Fisheries Centre, July 2000

http://www2.fisheries.com/archive/publications/reports/report9_8.php

“Abstract
This Report documents most of the presentations given at an international conference on the Economics of Maine Protected Areas (MPAs) on July 6 to 7, 2000 at the UBC Fisheries Centre. MPAs are areas in a marine habitat that are closed either partially or completely to fishing. They have recently been promoted as complements to traditional fisheries management in the literature. The conference sought to provide a forum for academics, government and private sector actors to present, share ideas, information and models for assessing the benefits of MPAs. The focus of the conference was on the analysis and modelling of economic and social aspects of MPAs. As the papers in this volume show, the presentations were multidisciplinary in scope, covering the state of the art in the analysis of the use of MPAs as management tools for sustainable fisheries.
Results reported at the conference include:
• protecting one of the subpopulations in a stochastic model reduces the sum of squared deviations of catches and effort while the average catch increases;
• to assess the potential benefits of MPAs to fisheries one needs to factor in possible benefits arising from improvements in habitat within reserves, and the lower management costs that MPA implementation could lead to;
• the success of MPAs hinges on the development of economic alternatives for former users of the areas protected;
• if the current fisheries management system is inefficient and no improvement is expected, it is very hard to provide an economic reason for introducing MPAs;
• incorrectly sized or located MPAs may increase the risk of depletion;
• small MPAs with artificial reefs achieve little to avert collapse of fisheries or shift towards catches of low trophic level species;
• accounting for the non-consumptive economic value of fish abundance and size may have a large impact on the economic viability of ecologically functional MPAs;
• in the presence of a limited entry license system, reserve creation can produce a win-win situation where aggregate biomass and the common license price increase;
• MPAs can have differential impacts on the various players involved in a fishery;
• the possibility of spatial heterogeneity in fish stocks implies that an MPA can impact on biodiversity in potentially undesirable ways;
• MPAs can help hedge against uncertainty, especially in cooperatively managed fisheries;
• the precautionary approach in fisheries management implies that economic loss due to the implementation of MPAs will have to be very large to make the establishment of MPAs economically unwise.”

5. International History Of Marine Protected Areas

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9994&page=145
“The concept of protecting marine areas from fishing and other human activities is not new. In the nonmarket economies of island nations in Oceania (Polynesia, Melanesia, and Micronesia), measures to regulate and manage fisheries have been in use for centuries. These include the closing of fishing or crabbing areas, sometimes for ritual reasons but also for conservation when the ruler decided an area had been overfished or needed protection because it served as a breeding ground for fish that would supply the surrounding reefs (Johannes, 1978). In the broader, global context of conventional fisheries management, Beverton and Holt (1957) provided the first formal description of the use of closed areas in fisheries management. This work was in part inspired by the increase in fish stocks observed in the North Sea after World War II when the fishing grounds were inaccessible because of the presence of mine fields. Since then, fishery managers have used closed areas to allow recovery of overfished stocks, to shelter young fish in nursery grounds, to protect spawning and migrating fish in vulnerable habitats, and to deny access to areas where fish or shellfish are contaminated by pollutants or toxins (Rounsefell, 1975; Iverson, 1996).

Marine Reserves and Protected Areas Provide a Strategy for Ecosystem-Based Management
A growing body of literature documents the effectiveness of marine reserves for conserving habitats, fostering the recovery of overexploited species, and maintaining marine communities. There is a rising demand for ecosystem-based approaches to marine management that consider the system as a whole rather than as separable pieces of an interlocking puzzle. Congress recognized this in the 1996 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (NOAA, 1996a) –”

6. Protecting the Spawning and Nursery Habitats of Fish: The Use of
MPAs to Safeguard Critical Life-History Stages for Marine Life

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:d6XnFnt4rZ4J:depts.washington.edu/mpanews
/MPA77.pdf+benefits+to+fisheries+of+MPA&hl=en&sig=AFQjCNE-mM0Aw1O43e3WOc6gv5dxrHJTvQ

This article shows how commercially important fish species reproduce in spawning aggregation areas which can have a spill-over effect resulting in fishing enhancement in adjacent areas.

7. MPA NEWS search:
http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/mpanews?site=search&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&hq=inurl%
3Adepts.washington.edu%2Fmpanews&q=benefits+to+fisheries+of+MPA&btnG=Google+Search

Article #5 is one of many articles in the MPA NEWS out of University of Washington. A search on their site for benefits of marine Protected areas provides this list of references:

8. Towards Networks of Marine Protected Areas: IUCN and WCPA: The MPA Plan of Action for IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas
http://www.protectplanetocean.org/resources/docs/PlanofAction.pdf

“This Plan of Action recognizes that MPAs are a tool, not an end in themselves. They are essential in order to protect marine biodiversity and achieve sustainable fisheries. They provide insurance against the common global problem of failure of conventional fisheries management based on control of fishing effort and/or take. The contrasting combination of the physical connectivity of seawater combined with the increasingly known genetic isolation of marine species means that networks of MPAs are vital tools to support marine ecosystem health. Networks of MPAs, within single ecosystems but spanning entire seas and ocean realms (such as the High Seas), are necessary to ensure that biological connections are maintained between interdependent MPAs. A common example is where larvae from one MPA support populations of one or more species within other MPAs. A comprehensive, adequate and representative system
of MPA networks can provide protection for all major ecosystem components in conjunction
with their characteristic habitats and species at an appropriate scale within and across each bioregion. It should have the required level of management to ensure ecological viability and integrity, address the full range of human activities, and be sufficiently duplicative so that a single event, such as an oil spill, would not eradicate that diversity.”

9. Protected Areas, How marine Protected Areas Help Eliminate Poverty
http://www.nature.org/initiatives/protectedareas/howwework/art23185.html
A good example from Fiji of how MPAs can contribute to the social and economic well being of coastal areas in the developing world. Also see the video

10. Marine Protected Areas for the Temperate and Boreal Northwest Atlantic: The Potential for Sustainable Fisheries and Conservation of Biodiversity
Northeastern Naturalist, Vol. 7, No. 4, Symposium Proceedings: History, Status, and Future of the New England Offshore Fishery (2000), pp. 419-434 (article consists of 16 pages)
• Published by: Humboldt Field Research Institute
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3858522

“Abstract
Year-round no-take marine protected areas (MPAs) can enhance conservation of exploited species and biodiversity overall. MPAs have the potential to sustain living marine resources and their support systems at genetic, population-community, ecosystem, and landscape levels. From a fisheries perspective they can protect spawning and nursery areas of key species, maintain age structure (retain older, proportionately more fecund individuals), protect key habitats, and reduce bycatch. MPAs are used sporadically in management of fisheries and are generally based on predicted responses for populations of exploited taxa. However, identification of representative, rare, and high diversity areas of temperate and boreal marine systems, especially on outer continental shelves, is still in its infancy. There is information available from both the scientific literature and from fishers on the life history and behavior of economically important species, on species assemblage patterns, and on physical structure of the marine environment. Such information could be used as a starting point for identifying areas of particular importance to populations or communities of fishes and for the conservation of diversity at the regional scale. Identification of such areas could serve as a basis to design an experimental network of MPAs. Such MPAs, designated for the purpose of maintaining or developing sustainable fisheries, must explicitly be designed within an experimental context, maintaining flexibility for changes in regulations as new information becomes available. Monitoring change in exploited and non-target populations (intra- and inter-guild), habitat complexity indices, and diversity of sentinel taxa (for assessing maintenance of diversity) will be needed to provide feedback to assess the efficacy of MPAs and to recommend changes in the regulatory framework.”

Return to The RRAB Index.

Options on Alternate Configurations of Buffer zones

Posted on by

This file presents several possible configurations of buffer zones for the proposed MPA. It is important to recognize that this is only a proposal from one participant in how boundaries may be modified in the future as new research becomes available:
G. Fletcher, November 20, 2009,

A buffer zone for the MPA would solve several problems.
  • It could help eliminate the uncertainty over the actual reserve boundary, making it possible to monitor activities and report infractions more easily.
  • A buffer zone could ensure that such activities as ocean dumping, bilge discharge or ocean mining would not leave Race Rocks subject to possible future problems.
  • A buffer zone for commercial harvesting in place, would allow food resources of the species of the ecological reserve to be less compromised.
  • By requiring research permits for this area, regulation of all kinds of research can be better directed.
Below are presented a number of possible alternatives for defining a buffer zone. Units could be calculated in nautical miles also. Advantage of a straight side is that it allows accurate navigational points. Disadvantage -distance varies from tower.
#1: 3km square buffer around reserve #2: 4km parallel to reserve #3: 3km circle from reserve
bufferzone1 bufferzone2a bufferzone3-1

Several references mention the advantage of a buffer zone with such statements as “The buffer zones would reduce the likelihood of accidental incursions and would simplify enforcement activities,.”

In addition there will be no overflights by aircraft except where required by emergency operations or by Coast Guard at times acceptable to not interfere with breeding seasons. Cruise ships may not transit inside this 3 Km zone.

Proposals for : Future Modification of the boundaries of the Race Rocks MPA

Posted on by

This file presents several possible configurations of new boundaries for the proposed MPA. It is important to recognize that this is only a proposal from one participant in how boundaries may be modified in the future as new research becomes available:
G. Fletcher, November 20, 2009,
We are proposing that a reconsideration of the boundaries of the MPA be placed on the table for future deliberations. It should be noted that as more research becomes available helping to fill the gaps in knowledge about population distributions in the area, there may be a need to change the boundaries. It is mentioned in several of the references on MPA creation that this is often done to keep up with current scientific knowledge. This is intended to address the issue of the Ecosystem-based approach which is strongly reflected in the Oceans Act of 1998.
Below are three possible variations on the theme of alternate boundaries. The images are followed by a the rationale for consideration of boundary changes.

bathyunderlay11 bathyunderlay4 bathyunderlay5-1
 OPTION 1. A parallel sided shape to encompass most of the distinct reef of the archipelago. The boundary for a buffer zone being at 3 km. OPTION 2. A triangle covering most of the reef but including a section of the blue 100 meters depth. This may be useful for future population transects through the complete depth profile. OPTION 3:
A multiple zoned buffer which may see different designations of use.

There is a possibility that when they have undergone further research, specific zones currently outside of the protected area boundary, may lead to some unique habitat and ecosystem structure. Below are two such candidate areas:

dunes race_rocks_oblique-1 canyon
Two areas of interest in particular are the large sand dune-like area at over 100 meters depth which lie at either end of the Race Passage Canyon. Although there is no evidence currently on what type of ecosystem exists in that area, we should be prepared to have a flexible approach to boundaries in the future, as these land forms and their habitats could be quite unique. In this side profile of the Race Passage area, along the direction of the yellow line, is a geological fault separating Race Rocks from Vancouver Island.
 The canyon, results in vertical topography along with the resulting ecosystems that are probably unique to the reserve. It may be advisable to protect at least the reef-side wall of this feature if research justified it.

Descriptions of the activities permitted and prohibited
in each of the zones of Option 1:

ZONE 1

In Option 1, a basic trapezoid defines the boundaries of the Marine Protected area within which all species ecosystems and their complete habitat are protected. This designation accomplishes objectives which are within the interests of all the stakeholders.1. The complete underwater “reef” of Race Rocks is protected, ensuring that the habitat of key species is not compromised.

2. Speed limits of all vessels transiting or entering the MPA must be reduced to eliminate wash from wakes.

3. Commercial operations would be required to be registered with DFO as is proposed in the Draft proposal for marine mammals.

4. Approach to marine mammals and seabirds is limited to 100 metres and entrance to the area is prohibited except for service vessels when whales are present. In this zone marine vessels must avoid surface concentrations of foraging seabirds and mammals.

5. Recreational fishing would only be permitted outside of this zone.

ZONE 2This is a buffer zone in which no commercial fishing, extractive operations or marine dumping can occur. Bilge pumping is prohibited and In addition there will be no overflights by aircraft except where required by emergency operations or by Coast Guard at times acceptable to not interfere with breeding seasons. Cruise ships may not transit inside this 3 Km zone.See this file for more information and suggestions on BUFFER ZONES

RATIONALE FOR THIS BOUNDARY PROPOSAL
1. Protection of Fish resources only in the Race Rocks MPA is inadequate and contrary to the purpose of an MPA ” To protect marine species and habitats.” It will be very short- sighted to rush through the MPA process without making a serious effort to do what is best and ecologically sustainable for the long term future.
2. In this way, the complete underwater “reef” of Race Rocks is protected, ensuring that the habitat of key species is not compromised, and that optimal conditions are provided for regeneration of species which will repopulate adjacent areas. Species such as Octopus lay eggs at depth and then migrate up the reef when mature. It is essential to take into consideration the 3 dimensional aspect of the habitat of marine species if we are to achieve near-complete habitat protection.
3. The original purpose of the MPA creation at Race Rocks was to eliminate the jurisdictional problems of administering the marine protected area so that the ecosystem would gain better protection in law. Simplifying the boundaries make it more obvious to users of the resources in the area.
4. Fisheries enhancement in adjacent areas will be much stronger if this complete reef refugia is available. Research in many parts of the world has clearly demonstrated this.This reference provides many examples of the research throughout the world on MPA benefits to fisheries enhancement, and biodiversity .
5. The version of the MPA boundaries proposed in September by DFO might result in the following unresolved problems:

  • Marine birds and their foraging habitat in the waters around Race Rocks, and the nesting habitat of four species of seabirds: black oyster catcher, pigeon guillemot, glaucous -winged gull and pelagic cormorant on Race Rocks are not protected by this act because they are covered by different legislation, some provincial, some federal.
  • Intertidal life on the 9+ Race Rocks islands is protected by Ecological reserve status only, and that designation is only a designation by an order in council by the BC legislature, which could be rescinded .
  • No buffer zone to prohibit such activities as ocean dumping, bilge discharge or ocean mining exists, leaving Race Rocks subject to possible future problems.
  • No buffer zone for commercial harvesting is in place, allowing food resources of the ecological reserve species to be compromised.
  • A Marine Protected Area designation does not necessarily assume it is a no-take area for any kind of harvesting, leaving the resources of the area open to exploitation, and the Rockfish Closure, also a temporary designation, the only protection for fishery resources.
  • Three species of marine mammals, Elephant seals, harbour seals and river otters currently use the Race Rocks islands as a breeding and pupping colony. Two other species, northern and Californian sealions use it as a seasonal haulout. Other legislation is still required to protect those species when they are on land.

History of the Boundary Location for Race Rocks MPA and links to references

Posted on by

This proposal outlines the history of the boundary designation for the Race Rocks Ecological Reserve and the proposed boundaries offering protection in subsequent years.

There are also links to other files with proposals for establishment of a buffer zone and future boundary modifications for the proposed MPA.

rrecoreschart
 1.1980: The existing ecological reserve boundaries were established to a depth of 20 fathoms or 36.6 meters. This level was chosen because it was a main contour on the existing marine charts of the day and because it would protect the seabed from overharvesting by divers.
2 1990: Under petitioning from BC parks and the ecological reserve warden, DFO, recognizing the significance of protecting more of the complete ecosystem at Race Rocks established a closure of all the reserve to commercial fisheries and a closure to recreational fishing of bottom fish. Fishing was allowed for transitory species such as salmon and halibut only. This designation proved to be difficult to enforce due to the distinction of types of fishing.
boundarydraft
 3. 2000: In January, the MPA Advisory Board proposed boundaries for the reserve which would have straight sides, easily identifiable with coordinates.
This proposal was rejected by the sports fisheries advisory organization.
append5mapa
 4. 2000: At a meeting of the sports fishing organisation and the Race Rocks Advisory Board members, the MPA advisory process agreed to a complete closure on fisheries within the existing ecological reserve boundary. This was a counterproposal to the new MPA boundaries being proposed, and the Advisory Board accepted that condition. It became part of the Proposal to Designate (Race Rocks) Marine Protected Area : 2000,
coord
 This and the chart above were used to designate coordinates of the area in the first MPA proposal.
rockfishconserve
 5. 2004: The areas in this map were proposed as a Rockfish Protection area by DFO.
rockfishclose
 6. 2004: The actual rockfish protection area established was reduced from the above when it was created by DFO. It is now based on the 40 meter depth. All fishing within that zone was prohibited at that time.
rrmpasept09version1
 7. 2009: At the September 25th, 2009 meeting of the Race Rocks Advisory Board, DFO representatives proposed the modification of the MPA boundaries to correspond to the lines indicated .
bathyunderlay
 8. The chart shown here was produced as a request to overlay the projected boundaries on the multibeam sonar map.
racerocksplan
 9. These 3 multibeam sonar images were produced after the first round of MPA advisory meetings, based on research started in 1999. This was the first time that such a detailed profile of the bottom substrate was available. In this and the image below, the colored area represents the topography down to 150 meters.
3d1
 10. The multibeam sonar image modelled from a southerly viewpoint
race_rocks_oblique 11. With this level of imaging now available, it becomes obvious that the existing ecological reserve boundaries do not adequately reflect the geology and geography of the sea bottom and therefore probably do not adequately protect the complete ecosystem of the reef which surfaces as the Race Rocks archipelago. The files linked below provide suggestions for how we may go about dealing with this factor.
 bufferzone2a Link to proposals options on alternate configurations of Buffer zones
 bathyunderlay11 Link to proposal options on alternate MPA reserve boundaries
This proposal has been submitted by Garry Fletcher, the educational director of racerocks.com, a former biology teacher at Lester Pearson College and the Race Rocks Ecological Reserve warden since the beginning of the reserve in 1980.
Link to this MPA benefits file: This reference provides many examples of the research throughout the world on MPA benefits to fisheries enhancement, and biodiversity )
See the other maps and aerial photos of the area on racerocks.com

Race Rocks Advisory Board Resource Documents

Posted on by

This file is designed for the use of the Race Rocks Advisory Board in order to make available in one index, the resources that are most relevant to the Marine Protected Area Designation Process.

Last update Origin EXISTING VERSION Update version or suggested
changes now in progress– contributions from RRAB members welcome..
2010 DFO DFO Response to RRPAB member questions
2010 Ryan Murphy Draft Socio-Economic Overview: Nov 2010
2010 DFO RRPAB DRAFT Ecological Overview: Nov 2010
2010 DFO Agenda for November 2010 meeting
2010 DFO Draft 1.of Management Plan.
2010 DFO DFO Communications Page with Agenda and Draft or Final version of minutes
( to May 2010 meeting only)
2010 RRPAB Values Input Table Update.Values Input Table of Lester Pearson College (version with embedded links for examples)
2010 rr.com The Race Rocks Marine Protected Area Advisory Board: Index of Events and Documents.
2002 RRAB Draft Management Plan for MPA
2002 PC Parks
2009 DFO Socioeconomic Base Case Update for Race Rocks Proposed Marine Protected Area
1999 G.Fletcher.
rr.com		 Gaps in research .. RREO workshop 1999
2001 DFO Race Rocks Pilot Marine Protected Area, An Ecological Overview, Wright and Pringle, IOS 2001 25mb PDF file Changes needed- R. Murphy
2009 G.Fletcher.
rr.com		 Marine Protected Area General References
2002 Sean Leroy LeRoy, S., 2002. Public Process and the Creation of a Marine Protected Area at Race Rocks, British Columbia.
Master’s Thesis. School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.
2009 G.Fletcher.
rr.com		 First Nations and , the Race Rocks Area includes a link to RRAB involvement .
2009 G.Fletcher.
rr.com		 Management Issues: INDEX of the environmental disturbances by humans at Race Rocks.
2009 G.Fletcher.
rr.com		 Ecosystem Index page linking existing inventories, taxonomy and data collection
2009 G.Fletcher.
rr.com		 Education resources index page
2009 G.Fletcher.
rr.com		 MPA benefits
2009 G.Fletcher.
rr.com		 MPA boundary history
2009 G.Fletcher.
rr.com		 Guest research being done at Race Rocks, 1999-2010
2010 G.Fletcher.
rr.com		 New updates to the racerocks.com and racerocks.ca site.
2010 G.Fletcher.
rr.com		 DFO finances on RRAB Process 1999-2010-index
Condensed version with graphs and summary only.		 reinstalled sept 2, 2011
2010 DFO The Oceans Act, 1996 current to March 25, 2010
2010 DFO
Boundary MAPProposed boundary areas
2010 DFO
Boundary MAPProposed boundary areas detail
2010 rrpa meeting Draft of recommendations from the Meeting called by RRPAB members.
2010 G.Fletcher.
rr.com		 Reflections on the Role of Education and Outreach
in the MPA Designation Process, 1998-2010.
2010 Shaw Ocean Discovery centre The Case for RR MPA in 2010
The Case for Race Rocks Marine Protected Area in 2010

DFO expenses from Access to Information Request

Posted on by

CONTENTS of this File:

1. Background and Rationale for this report .

2. Figure 1: Amounts of DFO Race Rocks MPA Budget, Amount Spent
and Amount Remaining for each year .. 1999-2010

3. Table 1: Yearly budgets, 1999-2010

4. Figure 2: Detailed overview of DFO expenditures on Race Rocks

5. Table 2: Detailed overview table, 1999-2010

6. Figure 3. Pie chart showing expenditures for five categories.

7. Table 3. List of Individual Expenses for the Race Rocks MPA 1999-2010

8. Example of Ecotourism report done for First Nations :2006
(668 KB.pdf file)

9. ATIP Report : A200900266_2010-02-09_09-00-22.pdf (6MB.pdf file)

10. Analysis and Discussion

10b. Followup April 20/2010

11. Condensed version with headers removed, showing graphs.

12. RRPAB Resource Documents

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:

Upon receiving this report, I was surprized to note several features:

1. The fact that there was a significant budget for the creation of the Race Rocks MPA almost every year from 1999 to 2010, when the RRAB (Race Rocks MPA Advisory Board ) had been effectively shut down in 2002.

2. The fact that in many years a significant portion of the budget remained unspent at the end of the DFO fiscal year when the process of management of this ecosystem and designate MPA was still being carried on by Lester Pearson College without any financial support from DFO.

3. The large portion of the cumulative budget over the 11 years that was designated for First Nations Liaison and continues to be designated, so far without any evidence of an outcome. ( process still ongoing as of Sept, 2011–)

4. The unavailability of written records showing the deliverables for most of the contracts.. hopefully in the interests of transparency and resource availability they are still to come from DFO.

5. When I made a request for the #8 report above: 2006 report on ecotourism, there was some concern about confidentiality expressed by DFO and then the pdf file referred to above in number 8 was released by DFO. This report, which it turns out after checking with the author of the document, was originally a generic power point presentation, which was never presented to the First Nations groups by the contractor. The simplicity and lack of quality directed a this specific case, represented by an expenditure of $19,000 is obvious. Furthermore, I consider the language and the content of the report to be patronizing to the First Nations who commissioned it and it only leaves me questioning the lack of oversight represented by this expenditure .

6. A request for further explanation of many of the contracts has been made to DFO and I will update this space if and when information is available.

7. The analysis for The Bowie Seamount MPA has so far not been done, but I plan on doing it as well as time allows in order to have comparative figures available.

8. One of the requests in my ATIP that they were not able to accommodate was for similar figures for the creation phase as well as the operation phase for the other MPAs in Canada, the majority of which are on the East Coast. I urge the DFO to make this available or if necessary other individuals to go through the ATIP process in order to retrieve this information and make it public.

9. I was struck by the fact that during the course of 11 years, not one cent was devoted by DFO to doing on the ground scientific research that could meet the GAPS in scientific knowledge that I identified early in the Pilot MPA process in April 1999 at the Race Rocks Ecological Overview Workshop . Furthermore, no funds were ever forthcoming for the ongoing operation of the designate MPA. ( Refer to year 2001 proposal )

10. As per a comment recently of one member of the current Advisory Board, “If DFO really is serious about public advice from an MPA Advisory Boards, It should make all information like this freely and easily available to the Board members.”

11. I would like to thank the individuals in the DFO Access to Information and Privacy office for their advice and cooperation during the process involved in this ATIP request.

FOLLOWUP:

On March 17, 2010, I sent an e-mail to our RRPAB representative from of the Oceans Habitat and Enhancement Division of Fisheries and Oceans Canada in Nanaimo. He had agreed by phone to help clarify some of the specific questions I had about some of the items in the list of expenditures. Below are the results of that query, with his responses in green.

Response April1, 2110

Based on discussion with my manager and our ATIP staff, I suggest that you submit your request for records outlined below through ATIP. In reviewing the records you’re requesting, I note that many of them are not in my own files. Further, going through ATIP provides greater certainty that the records you receive have taken into consideration confidentiality concerns.

I did quickly go through your list below with some responses that you may find useful in posing specific questions to ATIP. To the extent you can keep your questions specific, it would certainly help reduce the search time estimates. Also keep in mind though, that I have files from past staff in boxes. Though they’re labelled to some extent, if I receive an ATIP for files and I know those past staff have had some involvement in the programs relevant to the records, I’m obliged to include in my search estimates the time to go through the boxes that could potentially have relevant records. As mentioned below in a number of spots, I’m not familiar with some. By that, I largely mean that your description didn’t ‘ring a bell’ with me which would suggest that I won’t have the financial records associated in my own files.

1. I mentioned I am missing the March 31 2008  end of year report of expenditures which may have been lumped in with the Endeavour project number.
As mentioned in my email, fiscal year 2008/09 activities included only First Nations liaison work through Aaron Reith and the Socio-economic overview and analysis report (contract carried out by Sunderman). As I understand, those records were provided to you, but may have had a date of 2009.

2. Also although Lisa sent me the Endeavour /Race Rocks end of year summary  for March 2009, It is difficult to separate RR from Endeavour in that one.. Is there any further clarification such as Total Line Object figures  which may help me to pick out the  Race Rocks specific expenditures.
As mentioned above, March 2009 relates to fiscal year 2008/09 and I’ve listed the items related to that year.

3. I have come across another report that  I am unsure about:
Feb 20/01 M.Pakenham Conference Fees? $340.16
I believe he delivered a presentation to this conference as  at least I have seen reference to it in a googled file , however it may be useful to have the whole presentation ( presumably a power point in pdf ) if it is still available.
I do not have this presentation. I would not be confident that it could be readily located. A conference presentation may also have limited utility. That is, I don’t know whether Marc would have written and followed speakers notes written in the presentation. It sounds like you’ve googled the conference, I would suggest the proceedings of the conference would potentially be at least as useful to you.

4. Mar30/00 CRD VEHEAP contribution $6000.00. What is VEHEAP ..of the CRD  was anything produced as a result of  this.
VEHEAP stands for Victoria and Esquimalt Harbours Environmental Action Plan. I don’t have records of this. Further, I would suggest that this was an activity more related to our Integrated Management Programs rather than Race Rocks.

5. Was a report made available from this: Jan29/02 Env.consult , Environment/Environnment 0500 726000008186 $10,000.00
I’m  not familiar with this.

6. Is there documentation or report  on this one? Apr9 Apr/02 sci/env consult Luanne Chew Consulting Services for Completion of MPA Design Reports.
$5000.00
I’m not familiar with this.

7. When it says ” as per attached statement of work”  are those statements available and can they be made public.
as in
——–June 30/09-July13/09-Aaron Reith&Co     Community Liaison for First Nations with Respect to the designation process for the Race Rocks Marine Protected area. See the attached statement of work
——Feb 05/04 –To suport the engagement of Select Douglas Treaty First Nations as per attached statement of work. $15,000.00
——and 17 Aug,18 July 2004 –Songhees First Nation Support the ongoing negotiations of select Douglas Treaty First Nations in SVI in Broad Discussions related to Marine Aquatic Resources /To support neg. with Fed and Prov. Gov’ts of a framework for the cooperative mgt. as per statement of work $25,000.00
That would be a question best dealt with through filing an ATIP

8. What is meant by protection services in this one? and to whom did it get paid?
Feb08, Jan 09/2005 Security Additional Meeting, Protection Services ( Guardians, Commissionaires, security Guards etc.) $5,000.00
I ‘m not familiar with this. 

9. October 99 to December 2000 Axys Environmental Consulting.. Socio-Economic Overview of RR  — Is this the same one we have been looking at recently? if not could we get a copy for our resource files.
This is the  same as the Sunderman report provided to the RRPAB and referenced below.

10. It also is apparent that the socio-economic study update , I believe done in 2009 Prepared by:Randy Sunderman Peak Solutions Consulting Inc. Kamloops, BC  does not seem to be included anywhere in the expenditures up to January 2010, so could you check on that.
 I had understood that was provided in the ATIP. Again, you may wish to check the records provided for fiscal year 2008/09.

11. Dec 99-Feb 2000 Gordon Hanson & Associates Consulting…. was there a report produced for this, and if not what was the nature of the contract?
I’m not familiar with this.

12. The Canadian Hydrographic survey  (done back in 1999, that used the multi-beam SONAR ) does not seem to be represented as far as I can determine. This is probably because it was done by another part of the department, could you check into whether that cost is available as it would be a relevant science portion.
You are correct, it would have been financially coded in Canadian Hydrographic Services (CHS) coding. It may have been Oceans funded, but there could have been a budget transfer to Science Branch for the CHS expenditure.

Thanks for your attention to this. I hope this is not too many questions to pursue. If you can’t resolve all of them we will have to live with that. 

The above comments in the Analysis and Discussion represent the opinion of Garry Fletcher and are not to be interpreted as being the opinions of any other organization or individuals unless indicated otherwise. It is my hope that it can lead to a level of accountability in expenditure by DFO, and transparency to the public about this process.

Garry Fletcher
Victoria, BC
March 25, 2010

(updated April 20, 2010–GF.)

 

 

Access to Information Request on DFO expenses 1999-2010

Posted on by

CONTENTS of this File:1. Background and Rationale for this report .

2. Figure 1: Amounts of DFO Race Rocks MPA Budget, Amount Spent
and Amount Remaining for each year .. 1999-2010

3. Table 1: Yearly budgets, 1999-2010

4. Figure 2: Detailed overview of DFO expenditures on Race Rocks

5. Table 2: Detailed overview table, 1999-2010

6. Figure 3. Pie chart showing expenditures for five categories.

7. Table 3. List of Individual Expenses for the Race Rocks MPA 1999-2010

8. Example of Ecotourism report done for First Nations :2006
(668 kb.pdf file)

9. ATIP Report : A200900266_2010-02-09_09-00-22.pdf (6MB .pdf file)

10. Analysis and Discussion

10b. Followup April 20/2010

11. Condensed version with headers removed, showing graphs.

12. RRPAB Resource Documents

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.

Since that time Lester B. Pearson College has continued with the support of the Ecological Reserve at Race Rocks. They had assumed this responsibility in Stewardship of facilities and the Ecological Reserve since the de-staffing of the light station by the Coastguard in 1997. Since that time the College has provided an on site guardian and generated the funds to cover all expenses, striving for energy self sufficiency and a sharing of the resource with creative use of technology on the internet in keeping with the mandate set out in the management plan for the Ecological Reserve. During that time, BC Parks has also cooperated by providing some funding for on-sight infrastructure repair and maintenance.

“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.”

In the fall of 2009, DFO reconvened the Race Rocks (Public) Advisory Board. It became clear to many in the first meeting that the community memory was absent, leading to a projected process highly reminiscent of the re-invention of the wheel, aimed to push through the process and seek completion of the MPA by the end of March, 2010. It was to me as if the last 11 years had not existed.

Prior to the November meeting of the Race Rocks Advisory Board (RRAB), I initiated an Access to Information and Privacy request ( ATIP) to DFO which was originally intended to quantify the costs involved in the creation and the follow up costs of administration and operation of the existing Marine Protected areas on all coasts of Canada. One of many points of that ATIP request included the costs of the MPA Creation Process since 1999 for Race Rocks. After many email and telephone communications back and forth with the ATIP office in Ottawa, I agreed to reduce the extent of the request due to costs they were projecting for my complete list: ( 52 hours at $10.00 per hour which was beyond my budget!) Since I was still primarily concerned with being able to compare costs to see whether there was a common approach to MPA designation and operations after designation, I agreed to accept the records for Bowie and Race Rocks. It was made clear to me at the time that I would only get the figures from invoices for expenses which had been tagged with a code designating the project of that reserve.

This means that staff time and DFO internal resource costs were not available. In addition there is no accounting of the costs incurred by Lester Pearson College, outside researchers and volunteers with no support from DFO for research and the protection of the reserve during the interim while apparently ongoing negotiations by DFO had continued.

Knowing that ATIP requests usually take a long time, I assumed we would be having another meeting before I received the ATIP file. In the November RRAB meeting, I asked to include in the agenda of the next meeting a discussion of the costs of the MPA Process for Race Rocks . I was not given assurance at that time that it would be discussed and a further attempt by telephone to get it on the agenda also failed with an indication that it was not in the interests of the Advisory Board. By the time of the March meeting I had had time to do an analysis of the data and asked if I could present this report to the Board. Time was not made available to do that in the meeting so a group of a dozen Board members were able to stay after the meeting for the presentation and follow-up discussion.

The ATIP file of data had been sent to me on February 10, 2010. That document included all financial reports contained in DFO Pacific’s electronic financial reporting system (MRS) under the project code numbers for the Race Rocks MPA designation process (54257 and 93818) and the Bowie Seamount designation process (54262 and 93826), from 1998 to the present (January 15, 2010).  Total 6mb with 142 pages in a pdf file.) The following are summary graphs generated by extracting information from the ATIP file.

No information is available so far for the year Mar.2007-Mar.2008 ( GF)

NEXT:2. Figure 1: Amounts of DFO Race Rocks MPA Budget, Amount Spent
and Amount Remaining for each year .. 1999-2010

Garry Fletcher
Victoria, BC
March 25, 2010

150 years of Operation of the Race Rocks Lighthouse

Posted on by

The British Colonist July 18,1859: ” The Imperial Treasury had advanced 7000 lbs to construct two lighthouses, a large one on Race Rocks : a smaller one on Fishguard (sic) Island, mouth of Esquimalt Harbor. Half the sum to be paid by British Columbia and Vancouver’s Island: the other half to be borne by the Imperial Government.”

 

The British Colonist December 27, 1860: “The Race Rocks Light—The beacon on Race Rocks was lighted last evening for the first time. We had not the pleasure of seeing it shine ; but are informed that it was very brilliant, and every way suited to the duty it will henceforth perform.”

You can read other interesting articles from the Daily Colonist of the 1800’s here: 
Night time exposure by Ryan Murphy. For this and other images of the lighthouse see this file;On Dec 26, 2010 we celebrate the 150th anniversary of the lighting of the lamp in the lighthouse at Race Rocks. This lighthouse, on the most southerly tip of the West Coast of Canada, is the only rock-built lighthouse in British Columbia. It has served the people of the West Coast marine community uninterrupted all this time, and still continues as an important lighthouse and foghorn station today .To mark this sesquicentennial year, Lester B. Pearson College, who manages the island and the Ecological Reserve for B.C.Parks, has set up the Race Rocks Endowment Fund dedicated to the on-going sustainable operation of Race Rocks.

This file has many aspects of the history of the light station.

In the past year as much information as is available has been extracted on the early keepers of Race Rocks and several of the stories of heroism and tragedy are linked here.

Last year the tower underwent an extensive restoration and it now is in excellent condition.

From the top of the lighthouse, Camera1provides 360 degree coverage of the Eastern entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, from this most southerly point of land on the West Coast of Canada.

Race Rocks Light tower is situated in the Race Rocks Ecological reserve, on an envelope of land on Great Race Rock leased from the Province of British Columbia. Lester B.Pearson College has since the tower and foghorn were automated by the Canadian Coast guard in 1997, provided an Ecoguardian to live on the lightstation and has a long term lease from B.C.Parks for the operation and management of the area.

Garry Fletcher


See the News Page for recent articles about Race Rocks