Race Rocks Ecological Reserve-

marine ecology educational resource, remote-control webcams,elephant seal colony,Sea lion haulout,sustainable energy, solar energy

Race Rocks Ecological Reserve-

Category Archives: DFO

Lighthouse team disputes right to sell Race Rocks

Posted on by

Lighthouse team disputes right to sell Race Rocks operators say beacons not owned by federal government


BY AMY MINSKY, POSTMEDIA NEWS DECEMBER 24, 2010 
The 150-year-old tower at Race Rocks is among nearly 1,000 lighthouses and light stations under threat.
Photograph by: BRUCE STOTESBURY, Timescolonist.com

OTTAWA — With the federal government preparing to sell almost 1,000 lighthouses across the country, the group overseeing operations at the beacon on Race Rocks, off Vancouver Island, says many are not the government’s to sell.
At issue is who holds the rights to the land — the respective provinces or the federal government.
The lighthouse at Race Rocks, one nautical mile below the southernmost tip of the Island, was built by the Royal Navy in 1860.
It has been listed as “for sale” since June, when the government designated it and the others as surplus property. The tower stands on a rock within an island that is part of a provincial ecological reserve.
While the tower is owned and operated by the Canadian Coast Guard, the land on which it sits is not federal property, a spokesman for the province said Thursday. “The land occupied by the lighthouse on Race Rocks is provincial land, which is under a transfer, or lease, to the federal government for lighthouse purposes,” said Dan Gilmour, a spokesman for B.C.’s environment ministry.
In a letter to the Race Rocks team after the lighthouse was designated surplus property, Gilmour’s colleague, Doug Biffard, said he had received notice from the federal government indicating it was aware of the quandary.
“The Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the coast guard know that they cannot enter into any arrangement to sell, lease or otherwise tenure out, most of the lighthouses in B.C. because the land is under provincial ownership,” the letter said.
Last summer, the federal DFO published a catalogue of 975 surplus properties following the coast guard’s assessment of all the lighthouses it operates.
The list contains at least one from every province except Saskatchewan. To save the lighthouses listed as surplus, a community or group must agree to take on the maintenance of the site, but the federal government would continue to operate and maintain the lighthouse.
The government was criticised when the listing became public in June. Many groups said it undermined the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, which had come into force days earlier. The act was designed to ensure the federal government preserved historically significant lighthouses, rather than leave them abandoned.
Those feelings were echoed by the chairman of the Senate committee on fisheries and oceans, Liberal Sen. Bill Rompkey.
This week, the committee released the first of two reports on lighthouses.
When the committee toured the country and hosted discussions on the future of lighthouses, it heard from some of the stakeholders at Race Rocks, including Garry Fletcher, B.C. Parks Ecological reserve warden.
“It would defy logic to see how the federal government could sell a property owned by the province,” Fletcher said.
© Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist

Feds’ lighthouse sell-off program hits dark patch

Posted on by

Feds’ lighthouse sell-off program hits dark patch

 By Amy Minsky, Postmedia News December 23, 2010  

The lighthouse at Carmanah Point, southeast of Bamfield along the West Coast Trail, is one of the few remaining staffed lighthouses in B.C. Letter-writers say manned lighthouses have a long history of providing aid to mariners in trouble.

Photograph by: Darren Stone, Times Colonist, Times Colonist

OTTAWA: The federal government has been preparing to sell almost 1,000 lighthouses peppered across the country.

But many of those beacons aren’t the government’s to sell, says the group overseeing operations on an island in British Columbia where one of those lighthouses sits.

At issue is who holds the rights to the land : the respective provinces or the federal government.

The lighthouse at Race Rocks is located one nautical mile below the southernmost tip of Vancouver Island, and was built by the Royal Navy in 1860.

It has been listed as “for sale” since June, when the government designated it and the others as surplus property.

The light tower which harbours an automated light and a foghorn stands on a small rock within an island that is part of a provincial ecological reserve.

And while the tower itself is owned and operated by the Canadian Coast Guard, the land on which it sits is not federal property, a spokesman for the province said Thursday.

“The land occupied by the lighthouse on Race Rocks is provincial land, which is under a transfer, or lease, to the federal government for lighthouse purposes,” said Dan Gilmour, a spokesman for B.C.’s environment ministry.

In a letter sent to the team at Race Rocks shortly after the lighthouse was designated surplus property, Gilmour’s colleague, Doug Bifffard said he had received notice from the federal government indicating it was aware of the quandary.

“The Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Coast Guard know that they cannot enter into any arrangement to sell, lease or otherwise tenure out, most of the lighthouses in B.C. because the land is under provincial ownership,” the letter said.

Last summer, the federal Fisheries Department published a catalogue of 975 surplus properties following the coast guard’s assessment of all the lighthouses it operates.

The list contains at least one from every province except Saskatchewan, and includes some iconic structures, such as those at Peggy’s Cove, N.S. and Cape Spear, near St. John’s, N.L.

To save the lighthouses listed as surplus, a community or group must agree to take on the maintenance of the site, but the federal government would continue to operate and maintain the lighthouse, itself.

The government took some heat for the move when the listing became public in June. Many groups said it undermined the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, which had come into force days earlier, at the end of May.

The act was designed to ensure the federal government preserved historically significant lighthouses, rather than leaving them abandoned and left to crumble.

Those feelings are being echoed by the chair of the Senate committee on fisheries and oceans, Liberal Senator Bill Rompkey of Newfoundland and Labrador.

“We were disappointed and surprised that the coast guard had made so many lighthouses surplus,” he said. “It really defeats the purpose of the act.”

The committee this week released the first of two reports it is issuing as part of its wide-reaching study of Canadian lighthouses.

The second report, set to be released this spring, will focus on the heritage aspect of the country’s lighthouses, Rompkey said.

One issue the committee will examine closely is how much time a community group has to assume responsibility of any given lighthouse, Rompkey said. As it stands, groups have two years from the day the act came into force.

“We feel they really should revisit that part, at least,” he said.

When the committee was touring the country and hosting discussions on the future of lighthouses, it heard from some of the stakeholders at Race Rock, including Garry Fletcher, BC Parks Ecological reserve warden.

“In my opinion, it would of course, defy logic to see how the federal government could sell a property owned by the province,” he said. “And we conveyed this sentiment when we attended the Senate meetings in Victoria.”

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

Groups Struggle to Save Lighthouses

Posted on by
By Vivian Moreau – Victoria News
Published: November 10, 2010 3:00 PM
Updated: November 15, 2010 1:54 PM

Growing up in B.C. lighthouses, Alanny Brutton learned to help her mom and dad with their lightkeeper duties.

In 1970, two years after the family moved to Sheringham Point lighthouse, west of Sooke, a call came in from Victoria Air Marine Radio (a weather watch run by the Coast Guard at the time) while Brutton’s parents were visiting neighbours. There was a report of a boat fire on the water and the operator asked the 14-year-old girl to take a look. She picked up binoculars.

“I couldn’t see a boat, but could see a fire on land,”she recalled this week, pointing across the Strait of Juan de Fuca to the Olympic Peninsula as she stood uphill from the lighthouse. “I gave him the best co-ordinates I could.”

It was a house fire, she learned the next day when the dispatch centre called back.

“They told my dad ” Wow, she pinned that almost to the foot.'”Her directions helped firefighters locate the burning house.

Today Brutton is part of a volunteer group working to preserve the light tower as a heritage site, through a federal Heritage Light Preservation Act passed in May. They’ve collected $250,000 so far to purchase the land, if necessary, and are in discussions with the Capital Regional District and T-Souke First Nation on a potential three-way partnership to protect Sheringham Point lighthouse and operate it as an education centre.

“We want to preserve and protect this, to make it accessible to people who want to come and use it, to not have it fenced in.”

But because of confusion around the Act it could be many more years before the Sheringham Point Lighthouse Preservation Society can put its plans into action.

Introduced by retired senator Pat Carney, the HLP Act has a mandate to identify and designate federally owned lighthouses that qualify for heritage status and to ensure they be maintained, preferably by community groups.

Carney is livid, however, that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada issued a list earlier this year of lighthouses it says are surplus. The department’s website states the stations “could be replaced with simpler structures whose operation and maintenance would be more cost-effective.”

In order to be considered for heritage status, Carney points out, a lighthouse must belong to the feds at the time of application.

“Once a surplus light has been divested, it'[s no longer a federal light and doesn’t qualify for a heritage protection,”she said, speaking from her home on Saturna Island. “DFO has torpedoed the Act by putting (lighthouses) on a real estate list.”

The federal agency says it is only doing what the Act requires of it.

“DFO is complying fully with its responsibilties under the legislation,”spokesperson Nathalie Trepanier said in an e-mail. “This included the requirement to publish a list of all lighthouse properties deemed surplus to operational requirements, which was required under Section 8(1) of the Act.”

There is a process for community groups like the Sheringham society and individuals to petition Parks Canada – the federal body looks after heritage lighthouses, such as Fisgard – to have lighthouses considered for heritage designation through the Act.

Carney fears people will be frightened off by the complicated process. That’s what happened to Victoria resident Jeff McKay. A month ago McKay, who works in the marine industry, called up Fisheries and Oceans Canada about three properties on its lighthouse surplus list: Discovery Island off Oak Bay, the Ogden Point Breakwater and Race Rocks.

He found out that the breakwater shouldn’t have been on the list “ it’s actually owned by the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority. And although the other two properties are available, McKay was warned it could take years to acquire them because any sale must be vetted by local First Nations.

“Basically, it was so complicated I just walked away from pursuing it,”he said.

Brutton says community groups should step forward to pursue heritage designation for significant lighthouses.

“They should sit down as soon as possible with government and make their intent known. Don’t just go to the regional district. Go to your MP, your mayor, to all levels at the same time and get them on board with you.”

From a road above it, she looks toward Sheringham Point lighthouse surrounded by chain link fence.

“It depends on the government now, when it (the lighthouse) will be released and to who and how.”

vmoreau@oakbaynews.com
Find this article at:
http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_south/victorianews/community/107075928.html
© Copyright Black Press. All rights reserved.

The 150-year-old tower at Race Rocks under threat

Posted on by

Senators ‘just want to get the facts’

By Sandra McCulloch, Times ColonistNovember 12, 2010

The 150-year-old tower at Race Rocks is among nearly 1,000 lighthouses and light stations under threat.

Photograph by: Bruce Stotesbury, Times Colonist, Times Colonist

Senators examining the proposed destaffing of lighthouses insist they want to hear from all sides when they visit Vancouver Island next week.

The members of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans aim to hand its report and accompanying recommendations to federal Fisheries Minister Gail Shea by the end of the year.

In 2009, Shea announced lightkeepers would be eliminated. But a public outcry prompted her to ask the senate committee to investigate and make recommendations.

The senators will visit the west coast Nov. 16-20. But its appointment-only format has left some people concerned that only select parties are being heard.

“The senate committee’s schedule does not include any public meetings where B.C. residents can tell the senators what they think about eliminating lightkeepers from B.C.’s 27 remaining staff lightstations,” the Canadian Lightkeepers Association. Its comments came in a press release titled “B.C. public shut out of lighthouse hearings.”

Senator Dennis Patterson, deputy chairman of the committee, said the press release is an example of the misunderstandings over the visit and added that the senators wanted to meet as many people as possible.

“I know there has been some concern about this format, that we’re cherry-picking witnesses, and I want to assure you this is not the case,” Patterson said.

“We’re very open to hearing all points of view. We just want to get the facts.”

Financial constraints prohibit the senate from holding full-blown public hearings here, Patterson said. Instead, the committee will hold “fact-finding” sessions around kitchen tables, at lighthouses and in places like council chambers, said Patterson.

The format can be less intimidating than formal hearings, he said.

“In my opinion [it] can work very effectively,” he said. “You can sit around a table and have an informal exchange of views. We want to hear from the maximum number of people in an informal way.”

With a deadline of Dec. 31, there is a sense of urgency, Patterson said. Last week, he canvassed public opinion in Newfoundland and Labrador.

“The destaffing question we feel is most urgent — it has evoked a lot of concern on both coasts,” said Patterson.

The committee has already heard from representatives of the Coast Guard, the Canadian Lightkeepers Association and others who have testified in Ottawa.

Former senator Pat Carney, who opposes destaffing lighthouses, is scheduled to testify in Ottawa on Nov. 23.

The public hearings have a place in the system, said Patterson, “it’s just that we’re not able to take the show on the road for financial reasons.”

The committee expects to visit 10 to 12 lighthouses on the west coast and meet people in Victoria, Nanaimo, Campbell River, Prince Rupert and Vancouver.

The senators represent both sides of the house and there is no hidden agenda, Patterson said.

“Senate committees, I believe, have a reputation for doing good work and being independent,” he said.

Anyone wishing to address the committee should contact its clerk, Danielle Labonte, at 613-949-4379. The committee’s email is fish-pech@sen.parl.gc.ca.

smcculloch@timescolonist.com

© Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist

Lighthouses Part of Canada’s Culture :

Posted on by

.bclocalnews.com/

Opinion Column : Goldstream Gazette: Lighthouses Part of
Canada’s Culture : November 11, 2010
Lighthouses part of Canada’s culture
Published: November 11, 2010 1:00 PM
Updated: November 11, 2010 1:41 PM
Its easy on southern Vancouver Island to allow lighthouses to become part of the scenery. Unless one is a boater, a person may simply take the presence of these light stations for granted.

But there is a certain romance with lighthouses. They are a part of our history, a slice of coastal living that we envision as part and parcel of experiencing the rugged life of a maritime resident.

A Senate committee is further looking into whether Canada’s 51 remaining stations with lighthouse keepers need to be staffed.

No one would argue that having a live set of eyes available with the ability to take action in the event of a crisis isn’t critical at times.

On the other hand, technology has improved since the first lighthouses were installed along our coastlines. The notion of setting up a series of cameras, perhaps linked to satellites, to monitor the waters off Vancouver Island, for example, doesn’t seem like such an out-of-this-world solution.

But what of the actual light stations?

The revelation that the federal government has listed the majority of Canada’s lighthouses as surplus had many Canadians collectively raising their eyebrows.

It’s easy to envision high rollers buying the land cheap and erecting pricey spa-lodges on prominent waterfront properties currently anchored by lighthouses.

But is that what we want to see?

Other coastal communities and jurisdictions, the state of Oregon for example, have created successful models for saving these picturesque and culturally significant icons and utilizing them in a different way. Cultural tourism, facilitated by community groups and other agencies, could be the answer for saving the lighthouses of Canada’s Pacific Coast.

The federal government, if it chooses to divest itself of these assets, must commit to work with interested groups to enhance the viability of lighthouses, either as working navigational aids, tourist attractions or both.

Once they’re gone, they’re gone forever.

This article was originallyfound at:
http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_south/goldstreamgazette/opinion/107312893.html
now discontinued.

Terms of Reference on DFO website May 2010

Posted on by

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

The conservation and protection of:

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


Roles and Responsibilities of Advisory Board Participants:


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

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

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

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

See the original terms of reference in September 2009 here:

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 →

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