Category Archives: DFO

New DFO Report highly critical of Kinder Morgan /TMX environmental assessment on Whales

Posted on by

The recentlly released DFO report:
(See Full PDF) SUFFICIENCY REVIEW OF THE INFORMATION ON EFFECTS OF UNDERWATER NOISE AND THE POTENTIAL FOR SHIP STRIKES FROM MARINE SHIPPING ON MARINE MAMMALS IN THE FACILITIES APPLICATION FOR THE TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT was very critical of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project Application documents. The Conclusion of the report is concerned with Vessel strikes on Whales and the overall impact of noise from increased Project-related traffic.  Included below are the conclusions of the report.

Conclusions

There are deficiencies in both the assessment of potential effects resulting from ships strikes and exposure to underwater noise in the Trans Mountain Expansion Project Application documents.

There is insufficient information and analysis provided with which to assess ship strike risk in the Marine RSA from either existing or Project-related traffic. Ship strike is a threat of conservation concern, particularly for baleen whales such as Fin Whales, Humpback Whales and other baleen whales (Gregr et al. 2006). If shipping intensity increases as projected in Section 4.4 in the Marine RSA and the Strait of Georgia and Juan de Fuca Strait as a whole, the significance of this threat to cetacean populations that occupy the region will increase.

Incidence of recovered whale carcasses is not considered to be an adequate measure of the frequency of ship strikes. No information is provided about the speed and maneuverability of Project-related ships or the distribution of whales in relation to the shipping lanes. Analyses that consider the statistical probability of ship-whale encounters and the risk of collisions are considered appropriate methodologies to assess this potential effect.

The JASCO MONM model, as it has been applied by the Proponent, is not adequate to assess the overall impact of noise from increased Project-related traffic. Although state-of-the-art acoustic modelling has been used to model the noise propagation associated with a single Project-related tanker in the Marine RSA, only four locations were chosen to represent the Marine RSA; therefore, the assessment does not adequately represent the noise exposure for the entire time a marine mammal would be in the RSA. The assessment represents only Project-related tanker traffic and not the current noise environment or the potential increase due to Project-related traffic. Finally, the method used to assess the significance of impacts from the modelled noise level contours resulting from a single Project-related tanker and tug on indicator cetacean and pinniped species is qualitative and the lack of an appropriate assessment framework reduces DFO’s ability to evaluate the assessment.

(See Full PDF) SUFFICIENCY REVIEW OF THE INFORMATION ON EFFECTS OF UNDERWATER NOISE AND THE POTENTIAL FOR SHIP STRIKES FROM MARINE SHIPPING ON MARINE MAMMALS IN THE FACILITIES APPLICATION FOR THE TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT

See other posts on Oil Spill Risk for the Race Rocks Ecological Reserve

Jan 8-10, census

Posted on by

Wind has been fairly steadily N-NE 10-15 knots for past days with overcast sky and intermittent light rain.

IMG_7952

The “Orca Spirit”, large and loud.

Jan 9: 2 ecotour vessels including the very large Orca Spirit which passed through the reserve twice, I dont usually see this vessel this time of year here.  It is quite a loud boat when it puts its engine(s) in gear.

DSC_9279

Jan 9,leg-banded cormorant, red KJ8

Census, Jan 9: 
Continue reading →

Illegal fishing in the reserve

Posted on by

North westerlies 20-25 knots most of the morning. After noon the winds picked up considerably. Sky has been changing all day. Sun and clouds. Heavy fog in the morning. Light winds forecasted for tomorrow morning with 15-25 knots later in the day. 1 whale watching boat. 1 illegal fishing boat (recreational) A northern rough-winged swallow was spotted on the reserve today. Today a rental boat from Pedder Bay Marina entered the reserve around 1500h. The driver was moving the boat into kelp beds, where it would temporarily anchor in the seaweed. The men would fish until the boat was pushed out by the current and then would move to another kelp. I called PBM and they sent a boat to come inform them of the eco-reserve boundaries, and the Rockfish Conservation Area,  and reported the incident to DFO. The boat left around 1600h. They caught two fish and released one.

-Checked water level in the cistern.
-Chopped and stacked wood.
-Changed water in the eyewash station.
-Ran desalinator.

Rockfish Conservation Areas-19 and 20 Bentinck Island and Race Rocks

Posted on by

This is reproduced from the DFO page –the BC Sports Fishing Guide-Tidal Water Fishing Area

Bentinck Island – Chart 3461

19_20cover_RCA_inset_RaceBentinckThose waters of Eemdyk Passage in Subarea 20-5 that lie westerly of the meridian passing through 123°32.450’ west longitude and northerly of a line:

from 48°18.692’N 123°33.486’W
to 48°18.640’N 123°32.916’W

Race Rocks – Chart 3461

Those waters of Subareas 19-3 and 20-5 that lie inside the 40 metre contour line surrounding Great Race Rock and Rosedale Rock as shown on Chart No. 3461, published by the Canadian Hydrographic Service of the Department. Continue reading →

Marine-Mania!

Posted on by
Elephant seal snoozing

Elephant seal snoozing, #6375 in the background

Another female elephant seal, significantly larger than the tagged #6375, has visited twice this week. It is not tagged. The tagged female has also stayed around. Yesterday, she was resting in the shallow water and blocking the boat ramp as I was returning from the mainland in the Whaler. I left the boat tied up so not to disturb the seal and returned in an hour. The seal had moved to a very crowded area that many of the sea lions use as their water entrance/exit and was snapping and chasing the sea lions. I assume this was playful behaviour although the elephant seal was quite aggressive.

This first image shows the seal waiting at the surface.

 

 

Then the seal approaches the sea lions on its back, provoking them.

 

 

And with a splash, the chase ensues!

 

 

A new project on-the-go is a daily count of the number of fishing boats. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans are wanting to monitor the impact of sport fishing in the area. We survey an area from Beechey Head to Albert Head. On some days, there more than 100 sport fishermen in the area.

 

Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs) in B.C.:

Posted on by

Screen Shot 2015-03-05 at 11.15.31 PMRockfish conservation areas in B.C.:  Our current state of knowledge
Dana Haggarty, M.Sc., PhD candidate Consultant for the David Suzuki Foundation
August 12, 2013

This 84 page report is a thorough research on the extent, purpose and effects of RCA in BC. It has very good maps of the areas involved.

See the full PDF:RockfishConservationAreas-OurCurrentStateofKnowledge-Mar2014

EXERPT: Lessons learned from RCAs

British Columbia now has almost a decade of experience with spatial protection in the network of RCAs. Several lessons from this experience should be applied to the developing MPA network:

  1. All empirical studies of RCAs reviewed in this report are limited by their lack of data from before the reserves were established. If proper foresight and resources are applied, this problem can be avoided and data can be collected prior to MPA establishment. For example, the system of marine reserves in Oregon is being phased in to allow for data to be collected prior to establishment (personal communication, D. Fox, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). This greatly improves ability to assess performance of reserves and apply adaptive management.
  2. Long-term monitoring of reserves is necessary to determine their effectiveness. Assessments of which reserves are performing well and which reserves are underperforming are necessary ingredients for adaptive management (Hamilton, Caselle et al. 2010, White, Botsford et al. 2011). Monitoring data and reserve assessments are also necessary to gain and retain buy in from fishing communities. All fishing sectors interviewed for this report felt strongly that they wanted to see long-term monitoring put into place in RCAs and were anxious to know how RCAs were performing. However, it is difficult to get support for long-term monitoring. The need for monitoring should, therefore, be specified and planned for in the establishment of MPAs.
  3. Outreach, education and enforcement plans must also be developed and maintained for networks of MPAs. Commercial compliance with RCAs is very high since electronic fishery monitoring was put in place shortly after they were established. Recreational compliance, on the other hand, was found to be quite low. Recreational effort in 44 of 77 RCAs in the Strait of Georgia has not significantly dropped as a result of RCA establishment and compliance in many other RCAs around Vancouver Island in 2011 was also quite low. Greater education and outreach regarding RCA boundaries and regulations as well as why they are important is desperately needed. NGOs that have the ability to reach a broad spectrum of society such as the David Suzuki Foundation and the Vancouver Aquarium could play important roles in this regard. Modern tools such as smart-phone applications that employ GPS technology should be explored. These tools could both educate people about conservation initiatives as well as help people navigate in our increasingly complex world of spatially explicit management regulations. Compliance monitoring should also be built into monitoring plans to assess if regulations are having their desired effects. Enforcement must also be made a priority and supported with funding.
  4. Although many RCAs protect good rockfish habitat and contain good rockfish populations, not all RCAs are likely to be effective. Some RCAs were simply not well-located. A review of RCAs needs to be undertaken to identify which are likely to be successful and which are sub-optimal. White, Botsford et al. (2011) very elegantly put it: “Now that networks of reserves have been implemented worldwide, the time is ripe for the implementation of adaptive management. … Questions need to evolve from “Do reserves work?” to “When and why do marine reserves work, how long does it take, and what should we be measuring?”

Update on MPA process for the waters within the Race Rocks ER#97

Posted on by

The MPA process for the federally controlled waters within the Provincial Marine Ecological Reserve started In 2000.  A proposal was submitted  by a DFO -convened  Advisory Group composed of  Sports fisheries, First Nations, science representatives, Provincial Parks, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Pearson College representatives, whale watching groups, diving groups and several environmental NGOs . This proposal was changed for the Gazetting process  by the Department of Fisheries office in Ottawa, and the final result in the Canada Gazette was unacceptable to all members of the Advisory Board. You can read about that and a Master’s thesis documenting the process on the racerocks.com website.

Race Rocks Ecological reserve, photo by Adam Harding

The proposal languished until 2009 when DFO again asked the Advisory Board to reassemble. This month, after several years of separate  negotiations with First Nations,  an update was given to those members of the advisory group who were still interested in attending.

Angus Matthews provided this update on the Race Rocks MPA process.
Short version… on track but likely to take two more years.
If you want details…
We had a good meeting yesterday with Glenn Rasmussen, the DFO manager responsible for the proposed MPA. Arron Reith the First Nations consultant was also present. We had requested the meeting to receive an update on progress since the Race Rocks Advisory Board completed its work almost two years ago. The highlights are…

  • Additional meetings were held with representatives of the ecotourism/whale watching operators and a satisfactory protocol was worked out in accordance with previous advisory board discussions. There will not be fee based permits but operators will be required to register and file use plans each year.
  • First Nations consultation has proceeded with three of the four bands. Esquimalt band has not engaged in discussions. There has apparently been considerable progress with the other three bands and written confirmation will be sought over the next few months.
  • The First Nations discussions are likely to result in some DFO funded co-operative education programs with First Nations and Pearson College related to Race Rocks. A DFO/First Nations group has been formed to make these arrangements.
  • DFO has accommodated Douglas Treaty rights and First Nations will not be subject to a no-take regulation although there is goodwill among First Nations towards voluntary conservation measures.
  • From a governance point of view, the Minister retains sole responsibility for decision-making (it’s in the Act). First Nations and all stakeholders are able to provide advice to the Minister through staff.

The regulation still needs to be finalized from the working draft and approved at the regional staff and deputy minister level. This is expected to occur two to four months after endorsement is received from First Nations. It is then off to Ottawa where legal work will take about eight months and then it goes on the Minister’s desk. Once it clears the very big pile on the desk the regulation will be made public and go to the Gazette stage for public comment for 60 to 90 days. It sounds like the regulation is still in line with the last version approved by the RR Advisory Board. There is not much we can do until it reaches the Minister. At that point encouragement would be helpful.
Don’t despair! Look on the bright side; two more years is only 10% of the time since this process began 20 years ago!

Angus Matthews
Executive Director
Shaw Ocean Discovery Centre

DFO Marine Mammal Viewing Regulations

Posted on by

This post describes the history leading up to the updating of the DFO Marine Mammal regulations of the Fisheries Act in Canada. It is my observation that even with clear recommendations leading up to the rewriting of the act, there is no  evidence that marine mammal viewing regulations have been included in the Act.

1. The current statement from DFO on Marine Mammal Viewing guidelines is available at :
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/species-especes/mammals-mammiferes/view-observer-eng.html

2. The DFO  Regulations Amending the Marine Mammal Regulations are archived here: http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2012/2012-03-24/html/reg2-eng.html

3. The Marine Mammal regulations ( Whale watching Provisions) are found here:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/acts-lois/rules-reglements/rule-reglement05-eng.htm

4. The Marine Mammals Regulation Act is located here:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-93-56/FullText.html

HISTORY:

Amendments to the DFO guidelines on Marine mammal viewing were made after public consultations in 2002-  2003:
From the Pacific Consultations Summary of March 2003 The following section 5.3 ,
Regulation of Commercial Marine Mammal Viewing Businesses is quoted here in its entirety:“A large majority of the feedback supported the implementation of specific measures pertaining to the marine mammal viewing industry, but questions were raised on the inherent problems of: funding, education, enforcement/monitoring, management and control of operators. It was stated that any actions taken would be positive and in turn creates accountability within ecotourism and could provide an opportunity to educate all mariners on ethical viewing practices and species behaviours. It was questioned on how DFO will define a vessel is being used for marine mammal viewing and how DFO will verify/enforce this in regards to commercial or recreational vessels. It was mentioned by one person that those vessels already are defined under the Canada Shipping Act as passenger vessels and that those over 15 tons already pay a marine service fee to DFO. A concern was raised that regulations will be looked at by the marine passenger industry as a cash-grab but that any revenue generated should be used to enhance marine mammals habitats for future generations.
The definition of commercial marine mammal operator or vehicle should also include aircraft and be worded to include anyone with specific intent to receive an income/fee from viewing marine mammals in their natural habitat and should embody profit and not for profit ventures. An example of an in-depth definition has been taken from one of the workbooks.
“A commercial marine mammal viewing vehicle is one that carries paying passengers and changes course to approach rather than avoid marine mammals, or cause marine mammals to approach it. This is intended to exclude vessels that transit through an area while on other business, unless they advertise marine mammals viewing or other roughly synonymous activity (e.g. wildlife viewing). This would include fishing charter vessels that opportunistically approach mammals (even though their primary activity is unrelated). This would exclude passenger ferries and cruise ships that never change course, but include such vessels that sometimes change velocity to better observe marine mammals. A commercial person, business, or non-profit organisation that owns a marine mammal viewing vehicle, or is employed by, contracting with or volunteering for an owner.”
Licensing as a regulatory measure for commercial whale watching operators was generally accepted by respondents. It was seen as a useful tool, provided that the fee charged is not prohibitive and terms are equitable. The one fee structure that was provided by an individual was that the license fee should be $1000 for each power vessel and $100 for any business advertising marine mammal watching as part of a tour package i.e.: kayak tours. Some concerns were raised regarding licensing being instituted only as an income-generating tool. It was pointed out that the monitoring of commercial operators is already being done by M3 and Soundwatch and it was questioned as to what specific benefits to marine mammals could be identified with regulating the commercial whale watching industry.
Operator licensing needs to be regional i.e. coastline specific and a question was raised as to whether the regulations should include USA craft in Canadian waters. The benefits of licensing given in the workbooks were many. The use of permits or licenses would be helpful in managing the industry and to give an accurate account of how many vessels/companies are participating in this activity. It would also be an informational tool for mandatory data collection (days at sea, number of passengers, number of and location of marine mammal sightings) which could help determine potential effect on species. Other benefits would be that operators can be contacted easily with changes and can provide education to people and communities to help in conservation and be included as a group in management process/discussions. It was suggested by some that all operators and staff should fulfill a minimum training course in marine mammal identification and behaviour, which would include different scenarios on marine mammal encounters followed by an examination. Upon completion of the training, it was suggested by one individual that an Ethical Certificate of Operation could then be issued giving a “Whale of Approval” for the operator. It was felt that any revenue generated should be used to fund conservation and research projects, to aid in enforcement and monitoring and for the creation of education tools and programs.
It was suggested that the number of licenses should be limited in order to keep the industry at a sustainable level with licenses issued either annually or for a set time period of perhaps 2-5 years with reapplication at the end of the term. This would solve the problem of “weekend viewing vessels” that do not declare themselves. A provision should be made by the DFO that if standards are not met, the license can then be revoked or fines instituted.
The feedback regarding commercial operator viewing restrictions had three separate viewpoints. One group felt that restrictions should be the same for all to be fair, otherwise it would lead to injustices, be hard to enforce and that the industry could lead by example and help enforcement by policing other boaters and noting violators by name or registration of vessel. While others felt that, since the industry is directly benefiting in a monetary way, they should have more restrictions and pay a higher fee that would then go towards research/protection/conservation programs and education. Thirdly, other comments suggested different restrictions because commercial operators are viewing marine mammals for extended periods of time while the public and other stakeholders view for shorter periods of time.
Additional comments regarding commercial licensing stressed that it would be hard to enforce and how will DFO determine who should be licensed? i.e.: Commercial sport fishermen and dive operators. Also, some form of easy identification of vessels by the monitors is required so that names/numbers that can be seen easily to report infractions.”From the Victoria meeting Section 4.4 contains the following statement: Continue reading →

News Coverage : Race Rocks Advisers push for Protection

Posted on by
Murray Sager photo. Murray Sager is the relief caretaker of the Race Rocks lighthouse facilities. House, tower and generator building.

Murray Sager photo. Murray Sager is the relief caretaker of the Race Rocks lighthouse facilities. House, tower and generator building.

This column appeared originally in the Times Colonist
at: http://www.timescolonist.com/travel/Race+Rocks+advisers+push+protection/5275593/story.html

RACE ROCKS ADVISERS PUSH FOR PROTECTION: The Victoria Times Colonist August 18, 2011
After more than a decade of talks, the water around Race Rocks remains without federal protection. Now a push has begun to persuade Fisheries and Oceans to step back and allow Parks Canada to manage the Salish Sea from Race Rocks to Gabriola Passage.

The Race Rocks Advisory Board, a reincarnation of a board which sat between 1999 and 2002, was disbanded in March (2011) and some members have little faith that DFO can push an agreement to create and fund a marine protected area.

Angus Matthews, executive director of Shaw Ocean Discovery Centre in Sidney, who sat on both advisory boards, is fed up with fragmented jurisdictions and the lack of progress. He fears that, if agreement is reached, the proposal could derail when it reaches Ottawa, as happened in 2000.

“Most people are shocked that Race Rocks is not protected,” said Matthews, who is about to look for support from the Discovery Centre’s 17,000 members. “The public expects more from government and the ocean needs more. Race Rocks is the porch-light of the Salish Sea.”

Concerns include negotiations with First Nations, which, unlike the first round, are in secret, and questions about what benefits DFO is willing to bring to the table.

Dan Kukat, president of the Pacific Whale Watch Association, who has sat on both boards, said DFO is doing nothing to better protect Race Rocks. “It will only create more confusion and paperwork and red tape, and it could be detrimental to the area,” he said. “The Canadian taxpayer has paid $273,000 for consultations that have produced very little.”

The hodge-podge of protection now in place for the rocky islets and lighthouse, one nautical mile off the southern tip of Vancouver Island, includes a provincial ecological reserve designation, which covers the land, ***federal ownership of the lighthouse building,*** some fishing closures and a resident eco-guardian paid for by Lester B. Pearson United World College of the Pacific.

It is vital to have a physical presence on the rock, but DFO is not offering to pay for the eco-guardian, said Matthews. He added that DFO seems unwilling to take on other federal department issues, such as Department of National Defense explosions and dumping of ballast water by freighters.

Glen Rasmussen, DFO oceans co-ordinator, said consultations with First Nations have not finished and, once completed, regulations have to be developed. “We are still targeting to have those published and in place by the end of March,” he said. “But we still have some hurdles to go and I’m not saying it’s a done deal at all.”

The advisory group was disbanded because consultations were complete, but a public advisory board will be re-established once the marine protected area becomes a reality, he said.

So far, on the Pacific coast, Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents and Bowie Seamount are designated marine protected areas and Parks Canada, in partnership with the Haida Nation, has designated water around Gwaii Haanas as a national marine conservation area.

Hecate Strait sponge reefs are going through the process to make them marine protected areas and Parks Canada is working on the southern Strait of Georgia as a national marine conservation area. Parks Canada would be interested in expanding to Race Rocks but, for the moment, such a move is probably not practical, said Richard Carson, Parks Canada’s national marine conservation area director.

“The notion of going bigger is appealing and it’s sorely tempting to dream that dream, but we need to be realistic about what we can achieve. “We have to be realistic about how big a bite we can chew,” Carson said.

Once the southern Strait of Georgia national marine conservation area is established, it is possible that expansion around the southern tip of the Island would be considered, Carson said.

Both marine protected areas and national marine conservation areas have the same objectives of marine protection while allowing multiple uses, but have different management styles.

jlavoie@timescolonist.com
© Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist
*** There is some misunderstanding in regards this statement above , since the island and its contents are more likely provincially owned since the Colonial Government transferred ownership to the province when BC entered confederation. Further clarification on this issue is being sought;
Also see DFO announcement on selling off its lighthouses:

GF 2011.