DFO Vision and Objectives for a MPA Strategy

Posted on Monday,April 12, 2010 by Garry Fletcher

Note: This page appeared on the DFO website until April 12, 2010 at the URL:
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/mpa/vision_
It has now been removed.
Vision and Objectives for a MPA Strategy

The MPA Vision:
Generations from now Canada will be one of the world’s coastal nations that have turned the tide on the decline of its marine environments. Canada and British Columbia will have put in place a comprehensive strategy for managing the Pacific coast to ensure a healthy marine environment and healthy economic future. A fundamental component of this strategy will be the creation of a system of marine protected areas on the Pacific coast of Canada by 2010. This system will provide for a healthy and productive marine environment while embracing recreational values and areas of rich cultural heritage. Objectives for Establishing Marine Protected Areas:

To contribute to the Protection of Marine Biodiversity, Representative Ecosystems and Special Natural Features
To contribute to the Protection of Cultural Heritage Resources and Encourage Understanding and Appreciation
To provide Opportunities for Recreation and Tourism
To provide Scientific Research Opportunities and Support the Sharing of Traditional Knowledge Contact Fisheries and Oceans Important Notices and Disclaimers
Updated: 2006-05-25

Return to the Change in DFO policy regarding Education and Outreach

Return to the RRPAB INDEX:

Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Pacific Region
Contact Fisheries and Oceans

image of original page below:

Reflections on the Role of Education and Outreach in the MPA Designation Process, 1998-2010.

Posted on Monday,April 12, 2010 by Garry Fletcher

This information page was prepared and distributed to members of the RRPAB by Garry Fletcher, Race Rocks Ecological Reserve Warden and Educational director for the website racerocks.com –April 12, 2010.
It was modified on June 2, 2010 after discussion with Kate Ladell, the Marine Planning & Protected Areas Specialist Oceans, Habitat and Enhancement Branch of Fisheries and Oceans Canada .
: From the Canada -British Columbia Discussion Paper of August 1998 entitled Marine Protected Areas, Strategy for Canada’s Pacific Coast, A Joint Initiative of the Governments of Canada and British Columbia , ( a draft discussion paper for an MPA strategy that was prepared in 1998 by both federal and provincial agencies, not just DFO.) Appendix A of the document identifies the “Principal Participating Agencies in the Development of the Marine Protected Areas Strategy” as: DFO, BC Land Use Coordination Office, Parks Canada, BC MOE, Lands and Parks, Environment Canada, BC Ministry of Fisheries
Ms.Ladell of DFO has recently (2010) pointed out that,”The goals in the vision statement were goals of the MPA Strategy, and are broad so that they encompass the mandates of several agencies and Ministries…. they never were the goals of Oceans Act MPAs. Again, there has been no shift. The goals of Oceans Act MPAs have never been tied to Community Outreach and Education – please refer the Oceans Act. ”
in Section 4 on Vision and Objectives for MPAs, one of the benefits of MPAs was found to be: ” encouraging expansion of our knowledge and understanding of marine systems;”

The 1998 Discussion paper went on in the objectives to specify two significant objectives that captured the essence of how important the process was for education and research.
“4.2 Objectives for Establishing Marine Protected Areas
5. To Provide Scientific Research Opportunities and Support the Sharing of Traditional Knowledge

Scientific knowledge of the marine environment lags significantly behind that for the terrestrial environment which can affect the ability of marine managers to identify the merits of protection or management options. MPAs provide increased opportunities for scientific research on topics such as species population dynamics, ecology and marine ecosystem structure and function, as well as provide opportunities for sharing traditional knowledge.

6. To Enhance Efforts for Increased Education and Awareness

Over the last few years, public understanding and awareness of marine environmental values and issues have been increasing. There is general recognition that proactive measures are necessary to protect and conserve marine areas to sustain their resources for present and future generations. However, there is still a significant need for public education to instill greater awareness of the role everyone can play in the conservation of marine environments. Many MPAs will afford unique opportunities for public education because of their accessibility and potential to clearly demonstrate marine ecological principles and values.”

In the 1999 paper by Louise Murgatroyd (sponsored by DFO) titled Managing Tourism and Recreational Activities in Canada’s Marine Protected Areas: the Pilot Project at Race Rocks, British Columbia acknowledgement is made of the role of MPAs and Education.
5.5 Education and Interpretation

The provision of opportunities for education is a central function of MPAs and is a desirable and highly effective strategy against negative impacts from tourism. Education programs also reduce the need for, and cost of, formal means of enforcement (Causey 1995). Commercial tourism activities at Race Rocks are, on the whole, oriented at providing an educational experience and this must remain their primary objective. Tour operators must be encouraged to include information specific to the natural history of Race Rocks and its ecosystem when taking clients there (Willison 1999, pers. comm.). Furthermore, information regarding its protected status as an ecological reserve and pilot MPA should be provided to generate recognition and support for such initiatives. There is a need for consistency in this respect and it would be appropriate for industry, in partnership with other agencies such as local universities and museums, to develop a minimum standard of information to be included in interpretation, to ensure that correct and relevant information is being provided.

Education and interpretation are particularly important for private recreational users who are considerably more difficult to target. Broader efforts aimed at educating the recreational boating public on general conduct and appropriate behaviour in coastal waters, including ERs and MPAs would seem to be a realistic approach. To this end, the distribution of the booklet Protecting BC’s Aquatic Environment: A Boater’s Guide, a joint publication by DFO, Environment Canada and BC’s Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks should continue. The booklet covers a number of aspects of environmentally responsible boating, including respect for marine wildlife. The British Columbia Tidal Waters Sport Fishing Guide contains information on the location and regulations of MPAs, species conservation efforts and whale watching guidelines and is also an important contribution to awareness-raising……contd.

In 2001, The Oceans Directorate of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Region published an information pamphlet titled
Xwayen (Race Rocks) Marine Protected Area. In that pamphlet educational use is recognized :
Under “Who can use a Marine Protected Area: “The type and level of use depends on why the area is being protected, and will be decided in consultation with local resource users. Levels of protection can vary from controlled use where resource harvesting is allowed to strict “no take”zones. Other uses may include education, research and tourism.”
In the Management Plan developed by the Race Rocks Advisory Board in 2002, the following objectives were set out which also included Education and Outreach:
1″.To contribute to the protection of marine biodiversity, representative ecosystems and special natural features.
2.To contribute to the conservation and protection of fishery resources and their habitats.
3. To contribute to the protection of cultural heritage resources and encourage understanding and appreciation .
4. To support recreation and tourism opportunities.
5.To provide scientific research opportunities and support sharing of traditional knowledge.
6. To enhance efforts for increased education and awareness. To develop partnerships for management and protection of the ecological reserve – marine protected area including monitoring and reporting activities.
7.To develop working relationships and educational programs with First Nations.”
In the 2005 booklet titled Canada’s Federal Marine Protected Areas Strategy published by the Communications Branch of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Three core programs of the Marine Protected Areas Network are set out:
• Oceans Act Marine Protected Areas established to protect and conserve important fish and marine mammal habitats, endangered marine species, unique features and areas of high biological productivity or biodiversity.
• Marine Wildlife Areas established to protect and conserve habitat for a variety of wildlife including migratory birds and endangered species.

• National Marine Conservation Areas established to protect and conserve representative examples of Canada’s natural and cultural marine heritage and provide opportunities for public education and enjoyment.

On the 2006 DFO webpage (active until April 2010), the Vision and Objectives page carried the following 2 objectives of a list of 6:
“The MPA Vision:
Generations from now Canada will be one of the world’s coastal nations that have turned the tide on the decline of its marine environments. Canada and British Columbia will have put in place a comprehensive strategy for managing the Pacific coast to ensure a healthy marine environment and healthy economic future. A fundamental component of this strategy will be the creation of a system of marine protected areas on the Pacific coast of Canada by 2010. This system will provide for a healthy and productive marine environment while embracing recreational values and areas of rich cultural heritage.

Objectives for Establishing Marine Protected Areas:

* To contribute to the Protection of Marine Biodiversity, Representative Ecosystems and Special Natural Features
* To contribute to the Conservation and Protection of Fishery Resources and Their Habitats
* To contribute to the Protection of Cultural Heritage Resources and Encourage Understanding and Appreciation
* To provide Opportunities for Recreation and Tourism
* To provide Scientific Research Opportunities and Support the Sharing of Traditional Knowledge
* To Enhance Efforts for Increased Education and Awareness”

In this 2007 version of the Oceans and Fish Habitat section on the DFO website at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans-habitat/oceans/ri-rs/mpaframework-cadrezpm/page04_e.asp the need for effective partnership is emphasized.
“The concept of partnership is vital to the MPA Program its success depends on how well various interests are able to work together. Key program areas dependent on partnership include the gathering of information, the development of public awareness of environmental issues, the conducting of research, and the enforcement of regulations.”
Coastal Communities and Non-Government Conservation Organizations

The MPA program provides an opportunity for communities, as well as local, regional and national conservation groups, to be involved in conservation activities in the marine environment. In coastal MPA management, local organizations and communities will have the opportunity to play a prominent role, ranging from nomination and comanagement of sites to consultation activities and public awareness programs. Organizations nominating an MPA could become a ‘sponsor’ for the site. A sponsor is an organization prepared to make a long-term partnership arrangement for managing the MPA.”

Under information Sources:

establishing a monitoring component as part of some MPAs
using MPAs as natural laboratories to conduct environmental research.
Research and monitoring

Many environmental processes within marine ecosystems are poorly understood. Scientific research and monitoring may be conducted within MPAs, where appropriate, to understand marine ecosystems better and to provide valuable data on environmental changes.
Public awareness

Compliance with MPA regulations and management plans depends on the awareness and cooperation of the public. Interpretation and education programs may be necessary to explain the purposes of MPAs, and to provide information on appropriate activities within an area.”

In the 2009 version of the DFO website at:http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/mpa/vision_e.htm no mention is made of the outreach goals of the MPAs but education is still included in the goals of the National Marine Conservation Area. (However Race Rocks is not part of one of those)
“Purpose and Goals ( of MPAs)

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) designates marine protected areas under the Oceans Act in order to protect and conserve:

* commercial and non-commercial fishery resources and their habitats;
* endangered marine species and their habitats;
* unique habitats;
* marine areas of high biodiversity or biological productivity; and
* any other marine resource or habitat necessary to fulfill the Ministers mandate.

Within Canada, two other federal agencies — Environment Canada (Canadian Wildlife Service) and Parks Canada Agency — are working in collaboration with DFO to establish and manage federal marine protected areas
.Environment Canada

* Marine Wildlife Areas — established to protect and conserve habitat for a variety of wildlife, including migratory birds and endangered species.

Parks Canada

* National Marine Conservation Areas — established to protect and conserve representative examples of Canada’s natural and cultural marine heritage, and to provide opportunities for public education and enjoyment. ”

So it may be apparent now that the government Policy has evolved over the years on why Marine Protected areas are being established, and the public outreach element has been relegated to a task of the National Marine Conservation Areas. Since Race Rocks has never been part of a National Marine Conservation Area Proposal, it calls into question the appropriateness of an MPA under the Oceans act at the Race Rocks Ecological Reserve. Perhaps it should be considered a Marine Conservation Area where education is a priority. It appears that the existing mandate for Provincial Ecological Reserves of “promotion of research and education” will have to be relied upon for the Race Rocks MPA. Many of the stakeholders who have contributed time and energy to the MPA Advisory Process over the past years have done so with the understanding of the importance of “Outreach and Education” as a significant part of the MPA objectives. Clarification provided by DFO indicates that Education and Outreach is not part of their mandate but will still be part of the MPA through the existing Ecological reserve. Indeed I guess we were mislead as is indicated below.
Ms. Ladell of DFO has emphasized: ” There hasn’t been a change in policy regarding education and outreach in the MPA strategy. It is important to clarify that the strategy is not a DFO strategy but a federal-provincial strategy for a network of MPAs. The objectives that are included in that strategy (which, by the way, was released as a discussion paper in 1998 and never finalized), are therefore objectives for a network of federal-provincial MPAs, and are inclusive of the mandates of all involved agencies and ministries. The objective you note with respect to education and outreach is tied to the mandates of BC Parks and Parks Canada, and is one that DFO supports through a network approach, but not one that has ever been tied to our mandate per the Oceans Act. Therefore, the way the old website was written was indeed misleading, as it made it sound like the objectives were all DFO objectives for MPAs, when in fact they are objectives for the MPA network that are inclusive of several agencies’ mandates. ”

“HOWEVER, these are critical components of the Management Plan because they can support meeting the conservation objectives, and can therefore be included in the Management Plan. The important distinction here is between the actual conservation objective and implementation of the conservation objective through the management of the MPA (as outlined in a Management Plan).
This was taken down because it was misleading…… The objectives included in the 1998 Canada-BC discussion paper for a MPA Network Strategy are objectives for a network of federal-provincial MPAs, and are inclusive of the mandates of all involved agencies and ministries. The objectives specific to education and outreach are tied to the mandates of BC Parks and Parks Canada, and are objectives that DFO supports through a network approach, but not objectives that have ever been tied to our mandate per the Oceans Act. Therefore, the way the old website was written was misleading, as it made it sound like the objectives were all DFO objectives for MPAs, when in fact they are objectives for the MPA network that are inclusive of several agencies’ mandates. The old website was taken down because of the confusion it was causing and because it has finally been updated.
……..education is part of Parks Canada’s mandate around the establishment of National Marine Conservation Areas. There is no mention of outreach goals in the 2009 version of the DFO website, because, as stated above, outreach is not part of the mandate for conservation objectives in Oceans Act MPAs.
This is bolded on the website, but it is important to note that this is for NMCAs, not Oceans Act MPAs. As you correctly note above, the purpose of Oceans Act MPAs is very specific to the bullets (highlighted in large brown bold above).
………
Government policy has not changed on why Oceans Act MPAs are being established. The public outreach element has never been a part of the language around Oceans Act MPA designation or purpose from a regulatory standpoint.

HOWEVER, as stated above and in several recent meetings, DFO recognizes the important role of education and outreach and agrees that they should be a component of the management plan for Race Rocks MPA.”
(e-mail from Kate Ladell..June 2 2010 DFO)

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

Posted on Monday,April 5, 2010 by Garry Fletcher

Summary Report: Race Rocks Public Advisory Board Meeting #3

Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of observations and recommendations in support of the RRPAB moving forward.

Issues and Observations

The RRPAB is a representative group of stakeholders who have been providing advice on the designation process.
Many of these stakeholders have been involved with Race Rocks for many years, including the failed attempt to obtain designation about ten years ago.

This history has led several board members to become impatient with the current process and they have begun to question the benefits of continued investment in the designation process.
Some members have been questioning the wisdom of the significant financial investments (DFO) to date to achieve the MPA designation under the Oceans Act.

All members agree that MPA designation would add a greater margin of protection as well as a vehicle for funding management of the MPA.

Recent correspondence between members indicates that the Pearson College, Shaw Ocean Discovery Centre and the RR Eco-Reserve (RaceRocks.com) have significant interest in Race Rocks as a platform for programming. In at least one case there are significant financial pressures on continued programming.

DFO has established a separate, parallel consultation process with First Nations, as they are legally required to do so. These are moving more slowly than several board members would like. Also, only three of the four identified First Nations that hold an interest in Race Rocks are participating in the parallel process. This has been identified as a significant risk that might delay/derail the designation process and steps are being taken to address this risk.

Some board members have expressed concern that the DFO staff who are leading / managing the designation process have changed often and believe this has delayed progress toward designation.

Based upon previous experience, DFO is reluctant to set a definitive timeline for completion of the designation process, as they can not control the level of involvement of all interested parties. This is causing frustration for some members.

Recommended Consultation Objectives Moving Forward

Given that a definitive timeline for the designation process can not be established at this time, it is suggested that the following objectives be considered for the RRPAB moving forward.

Objectives	Outcomes	Outputs	Status
To review progress to date.	Board is up-to-date and supportive of actions and progress to dateMembers see how they have influenced progress to dateMembers understand how the progress to date supports future steps in the designation process and their role in it	Power Point presentation outlining the current situation and way forward.An overview of the OAR (includes SECOA, EOAR, and Cultural Overview) structure and status of developmentInformative text to be placed on the website (maybe the minutes of the meeting and the presentation)	Full review conducted during meeting #3. Members were provided with an overview of the process, as defined by the Oceans Act, and where Race Rocks is within that processThe Mtg #3 evaluation indicates that the Board is up-to-date
Review the status of the Board TOR approval process	The role of the Board within the designation process is clarified.Members know that DFO staff have taken the TORs to senior management for approval and they will be finalized soon.Members know that staff have heard and are attempting to integrate their ideas into the TORs. Confirm the roles of the Board in the designation process.	TORs are signed off by the PAB and DFO.	A full report on status will be provided during meeting #4
To provide an overview of the designation process moving forward, from the current situation to gazetting of the final regulations.	Members have an opportunity to question and discuss major milestones and the timeline involved in the designation processMembers are supportive of the proposed approach.	Graphic summary (“wiring diagram”) of designation process and brief summary, in order that members can communicate the process to their constituents / members.	Presentation made during meeting #3Minute minutes and attachment provide future referenceRequest for “wire diagram” is pending From #3 evaluations, clarity of process with PAB is not clear

To provide an update on the status of consultations with First Nations.

Members understand the status of consultations with First Nations.Members have an opportunity to question and discuss the current approach.

Summary of current situation and way forward for involving First Nations

To provide an update on the status of the Overview and Assessment Report and its components and seek input as warranted.

An understanding of the Overview and Assessment Report, its function and components.An understanding of how Board input is incorporated into the Report (conservation objective, compatible/non-compatible activities, significance of the protected ecological features, and local and traditional ecological knowledge, SECOA).Receiving input from Board on any concerns regarding the OAR process, board input, how information is being gathered, next steps.

Update on Overview and Assessment Report.List of Board-suggested inputs to the supporting documentation.List of Board concerns / issues with the structure of the proposed documentation.

Update on Overview and Assessment Report.List of Board-suggested inputs to the supporting documentation.

List of Board concerns / issues with the structure of the proposed documentation (i.e. SECOA).

To review and obtain input on next steps for the MPA designation process.

A full and common understanding of the MPA designation process and timelines.Ownership, support and advocacy for the designation process.

Document the differences between the current (provincial) designation process and the MPA process, including the pros and cons, the approach to transitioning between the two and any concerns held by the Board.Document any Board questions/concerns regarding the designation process and timelines.Establish major milestones and timeline for designation process.

A simple graphic outlining the major milestones and associated timeline.

Full status report provided during meeting #3

To obtain input into the first order conservation objective for the Race Rocks MPA, including, vision, conservation objectives compatible and non-compatible activities

A full and common understanding of the CO processOwnership of approach by Board.Resulting CO is reflective of stakeholder values and interests

Determine whether objective is supported unanimously or not, plus list any concerns and which members dissent

Discuss objectives that are not supported unanimously so that all participants are aware of the pros and cons

Establish a list of any follow-up information or explanations required by members.Brainstormed (= draft) list of options for first order conservation objective.Review list to determine compatible and non-compatible activities associated with objective

Values summaries have been generated by some groupsDFO has developed preliminary conservation objectives, which were well received by the PABMore discussions required leading to definitive advice

Assessment of Meeting Outcomes

1. Sample

Board Members – 6

DFO Project Team – 1

2. Meeting Initiation

	VS	S	NS	D
Introductions	3	2	0	1
Statement of meeting purpose	0	2	1	0
Review and approval of previous minutes	0	2	1	0
Review and approval of agenda	0	2	3	2

3. Overview of MPA Designation Process

Very Satisfied	1
Satisfied	2
Not Satisfied	2
Disappointed	2

4. Review of Documents and Instruments

Very Satisfied	1
Satisfied	3
Not Satisfied	2
Disappointed	1

5. Opportunity to Ask Questions

Very Satisfied	1
Satisfied	3
Not Satisfied	2
Disappointed	1

6. Opportunity to Discuss Issues

Very Satisfied	0
Satisfied	1
Not Satisfied	5
Disappointed	1

7. Opportunity to Plan Next 6-8 Months

Very Satisfied	0
Satisfied	1
Not Satisfied	5
Disappointed	1

8. Opportunity to Provide Feedback and Input

Very Satisfied	0
Satisfied	0
Not Satisfied	4
Disappointed	3

9. Detail and Format of Presentations

Very Satisfied	0
Satisfied	4
Not Satisfied	1
Disappointed	2

10. Opportunity to Develop Advice

Very Satisfied	0
Satisfied	1
Not Satisfied	2
Disappointed	4

11. Awareness and Understanding

	None	Limited	Some	Good
Role of the Board in designation process.		1	1	5
How the progress to date supports future steps in the designation process.		1	3	3
Current status and approach for First Nations consultation.	4	1	1	1
Current status and content of the overview and assessment report.		4	2	1
The purpose of the overview and assessment report.	1	3	1	2

12. Facilitator Helped Achieve Meeting Objectives

Much Better	2
Better	4
Same	1
Worse	0

13. Useful aspects of a Facilitated Session

1. Unbiased

2. Allowed participation of DFO staff

3. Agenda and key messages written on flip charts

4. Keeping the meeting moving

5. Yes, allowed DFO to more fully participate and there were strong feelings about process and issues that were helped by having a third party present.

6. Staying on task and on time

+++

7. No personal agenda

8. Good time management

9. Defusing tension and redirecting

10. Lowering the “volume”

+++

11. Competent and capable in role

12. Periodic check ins to assess how meeting was going

13.redefining the role of DFO staff in the process

14. Facilitation could be improved

1. Arrange for information request follow-up

2. Pay more attention to the issues important to the board

3. Was not familiar with TOR

4. Kevin needed facilitator help sooner when fielding questions

5. Accommodate the interests of members not just DFO

+++

6. Did not go over ground rules

7. There were some side conversations with DFO in which it appears some decisions where made about the agenda and whether Gary would be able share what he had learned. That information needs to have been shared. Reinforces the impression that this is an tick box exercise for DFO and it does not matter what participants contribute.

8. Seek advice from advisors in future meetings

+++

9. Had to be asked to step in to manage comments

10. Better agenda design

15. Meeting Pace

Too Slow	4
Just Right	3
Too Fast	0

16. Able to Exchange views and Build Working Relationships

Very Satisfied	0
Satisfied	5
Not Satisfied	2
Disappointed	0

17. Held at Pearson College

Very Satisfied	4
Satisfied	3
Not Satisfied	0
Disappointed	0

18. Why Dissatisfied – Nil

19. Time of Day

Very Satisfied	1
Satisfied	5
Not Satisfied	1
Disappointed	0

20. Why Dissatisfied

1. Adjourned too early

21 Food and Refreshments

Very Satisfied	4
Satisfied	3
Not Satisfied	0
Disappointed	0

22. Why Disappointed – Nil

23. Most Important Aspects of Meeting

1. Trying to get DFO to be responsive

2. Working on values identification

3. See letter e-mailed*

4. Understanding that the members of advisory group who have done this process for a decade know so much more than the DFO AND that the DFO staff have not looked at the results of the previous advisory group.

5. Having DFO participate as participants

+++

6. Get DFO to listen

7. That some (no all) of the original advisory group are not convinced DFO is willing to offer anything towards management in the future and a reluctance to rubber stamp something meaningless

8. The use of motions for clear advice / decisions

+++

9. Need First Nations input

10.Kate did a great job of the draft objectives and if they can be integrated with the MPA objectives from 2000 this is an incremental improvement.

11. Having local DFO staff supplemented by Regional staff. Better feed back to DFO management.

24. Least Important Aspects of Meeting

1. Obvious regurgitation

2. Designation process details

3. See letter –mailed*

4. Was the presentations by DFO because they did not link to the enormous advances that has already been made. DFO is missing an enormous opportunity and need to study the oucomes of the last process and then build then outline their process and internal process and then get every one to help them through.

5. Too much time spent on DFO updates

+++

6. That DFO and the facilitator’s need to leave exactly at 3:oo. Ferries appreciated but someone should have stayed out of respect and to learn what was of burning importance.

7. Too much time spent on DFO process

+++

8. DFOs need to control the agenda.

25. Extent to Which RRPAB Influenced Progress

Significantly	0
Somewhat	0
A little bit	3
Not at all	3

26. Closing Comments

1. Need real DFO input, not a cookie cutter

2. Dialogue on management objectives

3. See comments in e-mail*

4. DFO seriously needs to do a review and go and study the Race Rocks web site and the past history. This will go along way to improving the role. Great to have Kate their need a replacement ASAP and they too must do their homework. The process is unnecessarily prolonged given the amount of information that already exists. The funds budgeted for the completion of the process need to influenced by the advisory group. It is likely that this process could be finished in 1 or 2 workshops.

5. Solicit more advice from advisors

* Included with the author’s permission:

April 6, 2010

Richard: Well done!, thanks ..

Maybe some modification is needed on point 5. Be aware that the management plan published by BC Parks in 2001 needs very little modification, and research on gaps is already included, so there should be no delay attributed to management plan, a small modification by those who know what is going on should be adequate.

HYPERLINK “http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/mgmtplns/race_rocks/racerock.html” \o “blocked::http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/mgmtplns/race_rocks/racerock.html” http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/mgmtplns/race_rocks/racerock.html

I also want to see all those at the table who have influence, Transport being one area that has not been involved but yet is essential to solve the problem of overhead airspace. We have consistently asked for representation and accountability from that sector

A further issue that I never mentioned is the need to consider this as one of the first in a network of MPAs.. The marine ecological reserve system provides as good place to start, and I know that is a major goal of parks, FER , CPAWS and others as well. Refusal to acknowledge openly that this is one of the goals of RR MPA is to further reduce the interest and support of the rest of the conservation and ecologically sustainable use community. It seems to me that DFO considers this is a one off, and that’s not a good plan.

Garry April 5, 2010

Richard

In response to your questionnaire, I don’t believe in anonymity when criticism is involved so here is my comment to the last part.

It seems that the DFO has a problem with how to handle a group of people who already have a lot of expertise in the area, and who are in general agreement of a fairly clear vision of what needs to be done. I would go so far as to say much more than the DFO staff. The continuing changing of DFO personnel at our meetings means we are always facing a re-invention of the wheel atmosphere. The most recent appointment will only be there for a few months. How many times do they have to be told that all the resources are available on the racerocks.com website, as it is clear they are either not aware or purposely ignoring them? The lack of transparency in the real goals, intentions and unwillingness to discuss the value added that DFO can bring to the table is deplorable. I also really didn’t appreciate the lack of willingness on the part of the DFO reps to deal with the issues of the finances of the process over the last 11 years. The inability to stick with our original timetable, where we were to be finished by now is unacceptable. The goodwill of volunteers is being stretched too far. Perhaps given that DFO has frittered away a budget of almost half a million dollars in the last 11 years , with nothing done at Race Rocks to ensure its ecological sustainability is enough reason to cut the bureaucratic rubber-stamping process , bring out someone from head office who can make some real decisions and just get on with it. . An indication from DFO that they are willing to have another meeting right away to get to the bottom of the real issues might indicate to us that they are serious. So now they suggest in MAY!

The continuing absence of First Nations representation and the omission of the Esquimalt council in existing negotiations, let alone the expenditure of $170,000 for nothing that has gone towards conservation of ecosystem of Race Rocks in the past 11 years makes it clear to many of us that no one is willing to really deal with the problem up front. Keep in mind we were promised an MOU from the First Nations by last December. The inability of DFO to effectively handle the First Nations issues was made clearly evident to us when they indicated in the September meeting that they had met with First Nations and a ceremony was held to allow DFO to use the name Xwayen as part of the MPA. This was clearly done 11 years ago, we never used the name without permission, it was given to us to use for the reserve by an elder of the Beecher Bay band. A burning ceremony was also conducted there to allow the MPA to go forward. It seems that some people have selective memory about these things. Do a thorough analysis of the record to find out the full extent of the mess that DFO has made of what seemed in 1999 to be a simple exercise.

In our September meeting we asked that some effort be made to include a Science representative. The rep from UVIC has only been able to attend once and no substitute has been named. We have therefore not had any representation of what science needs to be done to fill the GAPS in knowledge required to justify this as a MPA. We also asked that the Department of Transport would be involved as there are many issues under their control.. also no action on that….and now the added expense of a consultant to conduct their meeting and do research on the process.

There is ambiguity in #11 about the “Overview and assessment report” as far as I am concerned no assessment report has been dealt with yet. If overview meant the DFO presentation, given in the first two meetings if it wasn’t overview? We don’t need any more overview, just get on with it.

Since some people find it hard to get through all the documents on the RRAB web page that are relevant. At least view this one and note the date! HYPERLINK “http://www.racerocks.com/racerock/admin/proposal/fedpropos.htm” http://www.racerocks.com/racerock/admin/proposal/fedpropos.htm

Garry Fletcher

PAGE

PAGE 10

Delaney and Associates Inc.

..durable solutions in a complicated world..

Values Input Statements from each of the Community representatives on the Race Rocks Advisory Board

Aside

Race Rocks Advisory Board resource documents
This file was for the use of the Race Rocks Advisory Board in order to make available the Values Input Statements from each of the Community representatives on the Board

Race Rocks Public Advisory Board Values Input
March 25, 2010
Past, present, future use
PEARSON COLLEGE
Lester B. Pearson College’s first significant interaction with the area was in 1977 as a location for marine biology field trips and diving. Faculty and students initiated the process of getting it preserved as an ecological reserve in 1979 and assisted BC Parks in the preparation of the Management plan. Since that time there has been a continuous record of student, faculty and staff involvement in doing ecological monitoring in the reserve and in student and visitor field trips. Pearson College has supported student research at Rocks and the faculty and students have assisted outside scientists in research projects there. (See this version with Links to Examples)
Each year it provides boat cover for the Christmas Bird Count by the Victoria Natural History Society. A college faculty member, now retired has continued to serve as Ecological Reserve warden for BC Parks since 1980. In 1997, the college took over full time management of the Ecological Reserve and the island facilities on a long term lease from BC Parks. The College has a high level of participation in R&D and energy projects such as the AXYS wind resource assessment buoy testing and the Integrated Energy Project involving solar and tidal energy for the Island. There is an ongoing program of retrofitting and enhancement of efficiency to the infrastructure through additional solar panel installations; LED and CFL lighting and battery energy storage has resulted in close to 60 % reduction in fuel consumption and resulting emissions.
It has also implemented more efficient water systems and is currently upgrading the composting toilets. The college has also had an ongoing ecological restoration program for the island in an attempt to mitigate ecological footprint of former operations on the island. It has installed and continues to run a weather station and continues the long term daily water temperature and salinity records for monthly submission to IOS. A database is maintained with observations from the ecoguardian and volunteers using remote cameras on tagged and branded marine mammals. In 2000, Pearson College secured a grant from the Millennium foundation for the installation of a LAN on the island and internet connection passing live remote controlled video and audio to the outside world by microwave. The college supports the website racerocks.com which is a non-commercial educational site continually being updated by a volunteer with contributions from staff, students, faculty and outside researchers. This website is used worldwide as a distance education tool, with several specific curriculum programs using the resources contained on the website.
DIVING
Recreational snorkelling/diving since 1900. Present/future use includes – deeper and longer dives, worldwide attention with pristine environment; (decrease in number of non-guided trips) 50% of dive tour customers are boat owners. Trend is toward guided dives (the expertise is valued). Educational briefing supplied with a guided trip. Not a large increase in # of divers (challenging climate in which to dive). Research area potential – archaeology, ecosystem, biology. Fewer safety / distress calls. Limited commercial diving operations.
RECREATIONAL BOATING Continue reading →

Summary Report Race Rocks Public Advisory Board Meeting #3

Posted on Wednesday,March 24, 2010 by Garry Fletcher

Summary Report : Race Rocks Public Advisory Board Meeting #3

Purpose: The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of observations and recommendations in support of the RRPAB moving forward.

Issues and Observations : The RRPAB is a representative group of stakeholders who have been providing advice on the designation process. Many of these stakeholders have been involved with Race Rocks for many years, including the failed attempt to obtain designation about ten years ago.

This history has led several board members to become impatient with the current process and they have begun to question the benefits of continued investment in the designation process. Some members have been questioning the wisdom of the significant financial investments (DFO) to date to achieve the MPA designation under the Oceans Act.

All members agree that MPA designation would add a greater margin of protection as well as a vehicle for funding management of the MPA.

Some board members have expressed concern that the DFO staff who are leading / managing the designation process have changed often and believe this has delayed progress toward designation.

Recommended Consultation Objectives Moving Forward

Given that a definitive timeline for the designation process can not be established at this time, it is suggested that the following objectives be considered for the RRPAB moving forward.

Objectives	Outcomes	Outputs	Status
To review progress to date.	Board is up-to-date and supportive of actions and progress to date Members see how they have influenced progress to date Members understand how the progress to date supports future steps in the designation process and their role in it	Power Point presentation outlining the current situation and way forward. An overview of the OAR (includes SECOA, EOAR, and Cultural Overview) structure and status of development Informative text to be placed on the website (maybe the minutes of the meeting and the presentation)	Full review conducted during meeting #3. Members were provided with an overview of the process, as defined by the Oceans Act, and where Race Rocks is within that process The Mtg #3 evaluation indicates that the Board is up-to-date
Review the status of the Board TOR approval process	The role of the Board within the designation process is clarified. Members know that DFO staff have taken the TORs to senior management for approval and they will be finalized soon. Members know that staff have heard and are attempting to integrate their ideas into the TORs. Confirm the roles of the Board in the designation process.	TORs are signed off by the PAB and DFO.	A full report on status will be provided during meeting #4
To provide an overview of the designation process moving forward, from the current situation to gazetting of the final regulations.	Members have an opportunity to question and discuss major milestones and the timeline involved in the designation process Members are supportive of the proposed approach.	Graphic summary (“wiring diagram”) of designation process and brief summary, in order that members can communicate the process to their constituents / members.	Presentation made during meeting #3 Minute minutes and attachment provide future reference Request for “wire diagram” is pending From #3 evaluations, clarity of process with PAB is not clear

To provide an update on the status of consultations with First Nations.

Members understand the status of consultations with First Nations.

Members have an opportunity to question and discuss the current approach.

Summary of current situation and way forward for involving First Nations

To provide an update on the status of the Overview and Assessment Report and its components and seek input as warranted.

An understanding of the Overview and Assessment Report, its function and components.

An understanding of how Board input is incorporated into the Report (conservation objective, compatible/non-compatible activities, significance of the protected ecological features, and local and traditional ecological knowledge, SECOA).

Receiving input from Board on any concerns regarding the OAR process, board input, how information is being gathered, next steps.

Update on Overview and Assessment Report.

List of Board-suggested inputs to the supporting documentation.

List of Board concerns / issues with the structure of the proposed documentation.

Update on Overview and Assessment Report.

List of Board-suggested inputs to the supporting documentation.

List of Board concerns / issues with the structure of the proposed documentation (i.e. SECOA).

To review and obtain input on next steps for the MPA designation process.

A full and common understanding of the MPA designation process and timelines.

Ownership, support and advocacy for the designation process.

Document any Board questions/concerns regarding the designation process and timelines.

Establish major milestones and timeline for designation process.

A simple graphic outlining the major milestones and associated timeline.

Full status report provided during meeting #3

To obtain input into the first order conservation objective for the Race Rocks MPA, including, vision, conservation objectives compatible and non-compatible activities

A full and common understanding of the CO process

Ownership of approach by Board.

Resulting CO is reflective of stakeholder values and interests

Determine whether objective is supported unanimously or not, plus list any concerns and which members dissent

Discuss objectives that are not supported unanimously so that all participants are aware of the pros and cons

Establish a list of any follow-up information or explanations required by members.

Brainstormed (= draft) list of options for first order conservation objective.

Review list to determine compatible and non-compatible activities associated with objective

Values summaries have been generated by some groups

DFO has developed preliminary conservation objectives, which were well received by the PAB

More discussions required leading to definitive advice

Assessment of Meeting Outcomes

1. Sample: Board Members – 6, DFO Project Team – 1

2. Meeting Initiation

	VS	S	NS	D
Introductions	3	2	0	1
Statement of meeting purpose	0	2	1	0
Review and approval of previous minutes	0	2	1	0
Review and approval of agenda	0	2	3	2

3. Overview of MPA Designation Process

Very Satisfied	1
Satisfied	2
Not Satisfied	2
Disappointed	2

4. Review of Documents and Instruments

Very Satisfied	1
Satisfied	3
Not Satisfied	2
Disappointed	1

5. Opportunity to Ask Questions

Very Satisfied	1
Satisfied	3
Not Satisfied	2
Disappointed	1

6. Opportunity to Discuss Issues

Very Satisfied	0
Satisfied	1
Not Satisfied	5
Disappointed	1

7. Opportunity to Plan Next 6-8 Months

Very Satisfied	0
Satisfied	1
Not Satisfied	5
Disappointed	1

8. Opportunity to Provide Feedback and Input

Very Satisfied	0
Satisfied	0
Not Satisfied	4
Disappointed	3

9. Detail and Format of Presentations

Very Satisfied	0
Satisfied	4
Not Satisfied	1
Disappointed	2

10. Opportunity to Develop Advice

Very Satisfied	0
Satisfied	1
Not Satisfied	2
Disappointed	4

11. Awareness and Understanding

	None	Limited	Some	Good
Role of the Board in designation process.		1	1	5
How the progress to date supports future steps in the designation process.		1	3	3
Current status and approach for First Nations consultation.	4	1	1	1
Current status and content of the overview and assessment report.		4	2	1
The purpose of the overview and assessment report.	1	3	1	2

12. Facilitator Helped Achieve Meeting Objectives

Much Better	2
Better	4
Same	1
Worse	0

13. Useful aspects of a Facilitated Session

1. Unbiased

2. Allowed participation of DFO staff

3. Agenda and key messages written on flip charts

4. Keeping the meeting moving

5. Yes, allowed DFO to more fully participate and there were strong feelings about process and issues that were helped by having a third party present.

6. Staying on task and on time

+++

7. No personal agenda

8. Good time management

9. Defusing tension and redirecting

10. Lowering the “volume”

+++

11. Competent and capable in role

12. Periodic check ins to assess how meeting was going

13.redefining the role of DFO staff in the process

14. Facilitation could be improved

1. Arrange for information request follow-up

2. Pay more attention to the issues important to the board

3. Was not familiar with TOR

4. Kevin needed facilitator help sooner when fielding questions

5. Accommodate the interests of members not just DFO

+++

6. Did not go over ground rules

8. Seek advice from advisors in future meetings

+++

9. Had to be asked to step in to manage comments

10. Better agenda design

15. Meeting Pace

Too Slow	4
Just Right	3
Too Fast	0

16. Able to Exchange views and Build Working Relationships

Very Satisfied	0
Satisfied	5
Not Satisfied	2
Disappointed	0

17. Held at Pearson College

Very Satisfied	4
Satisfied	3
Not Satisfied	0
Disappointed	0

18. Why Dissatisfied – Nil

19. Time of Day

Very Satisfied	1
Satisfied	5
Not Satisfied	1
Disappointed	0

20. Why Dissatisfied

1. Adjourned too early

21 Food and Refreshments

Very Satisfied	4
Satisfied	3
Not Satisfied	0
Disappointed	0

22. Why Disappointed – Nil

23. Most Important Aspects of Meeting

1. Trying to get DFO to be responsive

2. Working on values identification

3. See letter e-mailed*

5. Having DFO participate as participants

+++

6. Get DFO to listen

7. That some (no all) of the original advisory group are not convinced DFO is willing to offer anything towards management in the future and a reluctance to rubber stamp something meaningless

8. The use of motions for clear advice / decisions

+++

9. Need First Nations input

10.Kate did a great job of the draft objectives and if they can be integrated with the MPA objectives from 2000 this is an incremental improvement.

11. Having local DFO staff supplemented by Regional staff. Better feed back to DFO management.

24. Least Important Aspects of Meeting

1. Obvious regurgitation

2. Designation process details

3. See letter –mailed*

5. Too much time spent on DFO updates

+++

6. That DFO and the facilitator’s need to leave exactly at 3:oo. Ferries appreciated but someone should have stayed out of respect and to learn what was of burning importance.

7. Too much time spent on DFO process

+++

8. DFOs need to control the agenda.

25. Extent to Which RRPAB Influenced Progress

Significantly	0
Somewhat	0
A little bit	3
Not at all	3

26. Closing Comments

1. Need real DFO input, not a cookie cutter

2. Dialogue on management objectives

3. See comments in e-mail*

5. Solicit more advice from advisors

* Included with the author’s permission:

—————————————————————————————————-

April 6, 2010

Richard: Well done!, thanks .. Maybe some modification is needed on point 5. Be aware that the management plan published by BC Parks in 2001 needs very little modification, and research on gaps is already included, so there should be no delay attributed to management plan, a small modification by those who know what is going on should be adequate.

HYPERLINK http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/mgmtplns/race_rocks/racerock.html

The science gaps require a commitment from governments to designate funds to thoroughly research the gaps. One of the reasons for MPAs as well as Ecological reserves is to serve as benchmarks for the environment and to provide educational opportunities.
I also want to see all those at the table who have influence, Transport being one area that has not been involved but yet is essential to solve the problem of overhead airspace. We have consistently asked for representation and accountability from that sector

Garry

Further comments by G. Fletcher
April 5, 2010
Richard
In response to your questionnaire, I don’t believe in anonymity when criticism is involved so here is my comment to the last part.
It seems that the DFO has a problem with how to handle a group of people who already have a lot of expertise in the area, and who are in general agreement of a fairly clear vision of what needs to be done. I would go so far as to say much more than the DFO staff. The continuing changing of DFO personnel at our meetings means we are always facing a re-invention of the wheel atmosphere. The most recent appointment will only be there for a few months. How many times do they have to be told that all the resources are available on the racerocks.com website, as it is clear they are either not aware or purposely ignoring them? The lack of transparency in the real goals, intentions and unwillingness to discuss the value added that DFO can bring to the table is deplorable. I also really didn’t appreciate the lack of willingness on the part of the DFO reps to deal with the issues of the finances of the process over the last 11 years. The inability to stick with our original timetable, where we were to be finished by now is unacceptable. The goodwill of volunteers is being stretched too far. Perhaps given that DFO has frittered away a budget of almost half a million dollars in the last 11 years , with nothing done at Race Rocks to ensure its ecological sustainability is enough reason to cut the bureaucratic rubber-stamping process , bring out someone from head office who can make some real decisions and just get on with it. . An indication from DFO that they are willing to have another meeting right away to get to the bottom of the real issues might indicate to us that they are serious. So now they suggest in MAY!

Since some people find it hard to get through all the documents on the RRAB web page that are relevant. At least view this one and note the date!
http://www.racerocks.com/racerock/admin/proposal/fedpropos.htm

Garry Fletcher

PAGE

PAGE 10

Delaney and Associates Inc.

..durable solutions in a complicated world..

RRPAB meeting #3 minutes, March 24, 2010

Posted on Wednesday,March 24, 2010 by Garry Fletcher

This is a draft version, The DFO version in PDF form is here: 2010-03-24

RECORD OF MEETING

Date: March 24, 2010

Location: Pearson College, Sooke, (Ed note:actually Metchosin,) British Columbia

Purpose of Meeting:

Meeting #3 of the Race Rocks Public Advisory Board

Group/Advisory Committee:

Race Rocks Public Advisory Board

Attendees:

Doug Biffard, BC Ministry of Environment

Chris Blondeau, Pearson College

Cathy Booler, Georgia Strait Alliance

Chris Bos, Sports Fish Advisory Board

Kevin Conley, Fisheries & Oceans Canada

Jim Cosgrove – Observer

James Dale, Wildlife Viewing Community

Mike Fenger, Friends of Ecological Reserves

Garry Fletcher, Race Rocks Ecological Warden

Duane Freeman, Department of Natural Defence

Gabrielle Kosmider, Fisheries & Oceans Canada

Dan Kukat, Wildlife Viewing Community

Kate Ladell, Fisheries & Oceans Canada

Angus Matthews, Shaw Ocean Discovery Centre

Ryan Murphy, Pearson College

Aaron Reith, First Nations Liaison

Richard Taggart, Sports Fish Advisory Board

Facilitator:

Donald Golob – Delaney and Associates Inc.

Meeting Goal:

To provide Race Rocks Public Advisory Board (the Board) members with an update on the designation process and receive feedback on next steps.

Objectives:

To provide an overview of the MPA designation process.

To review the status of the various documents and instruments and receive Board feedback.

To plan activities of the Board over the next 6-8 months

Materials Distributed:

Meeting Agenda

November 26, 2009 RRPAB Meeting #2 Minutes

Stakeholder Values Input Document

Addendum to Stakeholder Values Input Document

Fisheries & Oceans Canada Power Point Presentation

Key Issues Discussed:

1. Welcome

Introduction and Welcome by Kate Ladell.

An acknowledgement was made to the meeting taking place on the traditional lands of the T’Sou-ke Nation, Songhees Nation and Beecher Bay First Nation.

Appreciation was expressed to Pearson College for providing the meeting venue.

The role of the facilitators in preparing the agenda, with input from Fisheries & Oceans Canada and Board members, and facilitating the meeting was outlined.

2. Introductions

Round table introductions.

3. Meeting #3 Agenda

a. Review

The attendees reviewed the agenda with the facilitator’s guidance.

b. Discuss /Amend /Approve

Kate Ladell offered a point of clarification for agenda item 5 – “Structure and Status of OAR” should be a sub-bullet to the broader “Review of Progress to Date” presentation.

A question was raised over what to do if a new item that was suggested but not added to the meeting agenda, specifically an explanation of the business case / plan that DFO brings to Marine Protected Areas, specifically Race Rocks.

Kate Ladell offered a response that the business case / plan is set out through a Conservation Objective, which would be covered later in the meeting.

Kate Ladell responded we would not be having a specific discussion on the business case today, as the agenda was set based on feedback from a number of board members. However, this discussion could take place at a meeting outside of this board meeting, or be placed on a list of agenda items for the next meeting.

This item was flagged as an “outstanding item” for later consideration.

Action Item: 10-03-01 – DFO to include a business case / plan outline on the agenda of the next meeting.

A new agenda item was suggested by a board member(ed note: Garry Fletcher) to deliver a presentation he had prepared on the finances and accountability of the Marine Protected Area process.

Kate Ladell responded that when this topic was brought up at the last meeting, the board had suggested that it did not fall within the mandate of the Terms of Reference, thus it was not placed on the agenda based on previous input from the board. Another board member expressed that there should be room to include this on the agenda. This item was flagged as an “outstanding item” for consideration at the end of the meeting if time permitted, alternatively at the next meeting.

A request was made for an update on the status of the TOR

Kevin Conley informed the board this would be covered later in the agenda.

Meeting #2 Minutes

Review

The board was asked to review the minutes for any amendments

Discuss/Amend /Approve

Gabrielle Kosmider proposed the following:

Minutes – Correction to Minutes: change “Jacques Martin to Jacques Mark”.

Suggested Addition to Minutes (by a Board member): “It was suggested that designation could not proceed without a prior commitment from DFO regarding future financial and regulatory support for a MPA at Race Rocks in partnership with BC Parks, First Nations and Pearson College. No group discussion took place around this statement.”.

DFO’s response to the above addition to the minutes to be reflected in the March 24, 2010 minutes:

DFO Response: We acknowledge the concerns about having adequate funding and resources upon designation. Once designation is achieved and a management plan has been developed, identification of appropriate resources will be an important next step.

The facilitator reviewed meeting etiquette and a reminder to treat people with respect, to let people finish talking and to deal with issues calmly, as there is a lot of passion surrounding the topic of Race Rocks.

No other additions or amendments were offered.

Action Items were reviewed. Outstanding Action Items will be carried over and addressed before the next meeting, and are reflected in the Action Log.

Review of Progress to Date

Presentation – Review of Progress to Date

Kevin Conley presented.

Kevin Conley addressed concerns over designation timelines. Timelines initially expressed were the intent. A number of challenges were encountered. DFO has developed a project management plan for Race Rocks which has resulted in more realistic timelines. There is no intention to delay designation.

Kevin Conley explained the purposed of the “Triage Questionnaire”, which is a document to be completed by DFO, based on Advisory Board input, to inform what concerns exist.

The TOR has been brought forward internally in DFO for approval.

Action Item: 10-03-02 – TOR to be circulated to Advisory Board and posted on the Consultation Secretariat webpage upon approval.

A board member expressed some concern that the boundaries presented and those agreed upon by the Board might not be the same.

Upon seeing a slide of the boundary, another board member commented that the image on screen was correct, and that there was agreement on this boundary from the last meeting.

Action Item: 10-03-03 – Kevin Conley to send out a map that shows only the proposed MPA boundary for confirmation.

A board member requested clarification on frequency and total number of board meetings to occur.

Initially (when March 31, 2010 was intended to be the completion of the Board’s role), there were to be 4 meetings. Now there is a date of March 31, 2011 for completion of the Board’s role and the TOR indicates bi-monthly meetings, which is a large time commitment.

Recommendation from the Board: For the Board to meet as needed, versus bi-monthly.

Action Item: 10-03-04 – DFO is to provide updates via email the Board on a timely basis, so that they can report to constituents.

A discussion took place on the tenure of the Board. The commitment of the Board to be in place until the designation is complete shows the commitment of the people here to the process.

Kate Ladell clarified that at the end of the process, this Board will be disbanded and a new Board will be formed to provide management advice. Members of the pre-designation board will be invited to attend if they are interested.

An interest in carrying on with the process was expressed by some Board members.

A Board member inquired if there would be another chance to view the TOR

It is DFO’s understanding that the TOR was discussed at the November 2009 meeting, and agreed upon.

Another Board member expressed that the Board had not seen the final version.

A Board member expressed a desire to see a “wiring diagram” to see how the Advisory Board and First Nations consultation processes take place in relation to each other and how they are connected, including clarification of flow of information and how decisions are made.

Action Item: 10-03-05 – DFO to add as an agenda item providing an explanation and clarification of the First Nations and Advisory Board Processes, including how they are linked (where advice goes and reporting back).

A Board member inquired as to whether Racerocks.com could be used to post minutes and other documents relating to the current designation process. The point was made that it would be convenient for users and allow for continuity due to the documentation of past processes on Racerocks.com.

Kate Ladell indicated that the DFO Consultation Secretariat is effective at getting final documents posted and that another option would be to include documents from Racerocks.com on the DFO website as well.

Action Item: 10-03-06 – Kate Ladell to confirm with DFO Communications whether posting Race Rocks DFO documents to Racerocks.com is possible.

The facilitator inquired as to how the Board felt about information has been presented so far in meeting

Overall response good.

Kevin Conley presented an outline of the Overview and Assessment Report

The Values Input table has been valuable for filling in gaps

There were some comments on the Draft Socio-economic and Cultural Overview and Assessment (SECOA) from the last meeting.

DFO needs to consult the Board to ensure the correct contacts are made to finish the Socio-economic component.

For the Cultural component:

DFO will be working on the First Nations component this fiscal year.

The Values Input document will inform the other cultural and historical aspects.

Recommendation of the Board: The Socio-economic component is not sufficient and is flagged as needing some work. DFO to draw expertise from Board and provide funding to complete socio-economic component.

There is lots of expertise around the table

Could we draw on expertise around the table and provide funding for someone to complete the socio-economic component?

Action item: 10-03-07 – Board members to prepare a recommendation to state this.

A Board member raised a question regarding where the Wright and Pringle document fits into Overview and Assessment process.

Kevin Conley explained that this Overview and Assessment is an update to the Wright and Pringle document (e.g. Rockfish Conservation, Species at Risk Act)

The process of the overview, regulatory processes, etc. have changed in the meantime.

Board members expressed concern with gaps in research:

Will there be a fisheries study?

Will there be an invertebrate study?

Action item: 10-03-08 – Board members to prepare a recommendation that gaps be identified and prioritized and a commitment be made to research.

A board member recommended that historical aspects be added to the SECOA to capture the interesting history.

150 years since tower was erected

Navy’s anniversary

Approach and status of First Nations consultation

Kevin Conley/Aaron Reith presented.

Aaron Reith recognizes the efforts of Gordon Curry, Glen Rasmussen and Kevin Conley in relationship building.

The MOU that is being developed must be signed and accepted by both parties. It involves DFO and the T’Sou-ke Nation, Songhees Nation and Beecher Bay First Nation.

The proposed MOU was submitted to DFO on January 4, 2010 and on March 18, 2010 DFO provided recommendations to First Nations.

In April 2010 there will be a face to face meeting between DFO and the three First Nations regarding the MOU.

Esquimalt FN is not involved in the MOU:

Kevin Conley is trying to arrange a meeting.

He has notified DFO’s Aboriginal Affairs staff for assistance in engaging Esquimalt FN.

Aaron Reith indicated that T’Sou-ke Nation, Songhees Nation and Beecher Bay First Nation have indicated they want to be engaged in this manner:

It has yet to be determined how Esquimalt FN would like to be engaged.

A board member recalled that the best meeting they have had with First Nations took place on Race Rocks.

Pearson College welcomed everybody to another meeting on Race Rocks.

Aaron Reith appreciates the comments and will bring them forward.

Board members expressed concerns with Esquimalt FN not participating in the MOU.

Kevin Conley explained they have not expressed interest in participating in this manner.

Kate Ladell explained that DFO needs to clarify how engagement has proceeded with Esquimalt FN in the past and needs to do more work to ensure engagement moves forward.

Action Item: 10-03-09 – DFO to review and report on progress with Esquimalt First Nation with respect to consultation.

Board members expressed concerns that this process will lead to similar challenges from the last process:

Concerns that there will be inadequate First Nations involvement – this needs to be addressed.

Kevin Conley expressed that DFO is aware of this and are actively trying to find a venue and find out their interests.

Dan Kukat will be seeing Chief Andy Thomas at a Victoria Harbour Authority meeting on March 25, 2010

Action item: 10-03-10 – Dan will report any information back to the Board.

Overview of the designation process

Presentation – Steps in the regulatory process

Kevin Conley presented.

Race Rocks AOI is currently in the “Overview and Assessment” stage.

This stage involves lots of work, but informs the rest of the process.

The regulatory intent will be taken to the Board for review.

In the previous process, concerns were brought up in the regulatory drafting stage.

Kate Ladell and Kevin Conley outlined the DFO decision making process.

There is a lot of simultaneous communication, reporting and feedback that needs to happen within and between the Region and National Headquarters (Ottawa).

Can make for difficulties in getting information in a timely fashion.

A Board member raised a question of whether management of an MPA goes through a similar process for decision making.

Kate Ladell explained the designation is a regulatory activity that must be approved by the Minister, whereas a Management Plan requires Regional Director General approval with Assistant Deputy Minister concurrence.

Once the MPA is into management phase, it becomes an operational responsibility; South Coast Area will be responsible and it will be managed by the Nanaimo Oceans staff.

A Board member questioned what would happen if the Advisory Board did not see any value in a MPA and recommended against it.

Kate Ladell suggested DFO would reassess based on the Advisory Board recommendation and other interests such as First Nations.

A Board member expressed that he was still waiting to be convinced that there was value added by this process:

Part of the advisory role is to comment on how much money is being spent on this and he feels that it is too much

He still feels like he is back at the MPA “yes” or “no” stage

He feels that Parks Canada’s National Marine Conservation Area designation would provide much better protection

He is speaking on behalf of his constituents

Another board member supported this view and also questioned what the added value was:

He feels that money could be better spent on what we already know is protecting and is working

Is there a paper on why we are pursuing this?

Action Item: 10-03-11 – DFO will research the steps and rationale leading to the previous decision to pursue MPA designation.

A Board member offered that proximity was one reason

To showcase what an MPA could do

Provide a regulatory mechanism for protection

Doug Biffard explained that the province put Race Rocks forward as a 1998 effort to develop a joint MPA strategy

The provincial designation is not strong enough to meet the objectives of the Ecological Reserve

Looking for improvements on conservation measures (e.g. marine navigation (wake, anchors), impacts on birds)

Fisheries closures have to be renewed annually

This could be passed over with an error of a Fishery Manager or changes within DFO, without consultation with the province

Kate Ladell explained that DFO’s approach to establishing MPA’s has changed since 2001

Now looking at strategic networks of MPAs; have been criticized for taking a “one-off” approach in the past.

Race Rocks could be perceived as falling into this one-off category, However, it needs to be considered in the context of a network: Currently we only have 2 Oceans Act MPAs – Endeabour Hydrothermal Vents and Bowie Seamount, both of which are far offshore. The other proposed Area of Interest is the Hecate Strait Glass Sponge Reefs – also offshore and very deep. Race Rocks would be the only coastal protected area, thus providing a significant ecological value-added to the Pacific Region MPA network.

Doug Biffard disagrees with the “one off” description:

Race Rocks was one of 100+ areas recommended for raising the level of conservation protection across coast

Race Rocks was to be the first, the next step was to do ~20 at a time.

Kate clarified that she did not think Race Rocks was a “one off”.

There are four clear objectives for Race Rocks in the Oceans Act

Kevin Conley stated that organisms in the water column are not necessarily conserved comprehensively by fisheries closures.

A Board member expressed that for 30 years someone from Race Rocks has been approaching everyone taking something out of the water

This has been working fine

We are putting forward a regulatory basis for what is already being done

Action Item: 10-03-12 – DFO to send out a web link for the Oceans Act.

A Board member questioned what regulations will be put into place when designation happens

Board discussions, such as Compatible and Incompatible Activities will inform these

A Board member expressed concern at Pearson College ability to continue to fund the Ecoguardian and Race Rocks

Worried about short term sustainability, let alone long term.

Don’t want to end up with a MPA with no funding associated with it

This was supported by another Board member

Frustration with how long the process is taking, resources given to the process of designation and concerns about sustainability were expressed.

MPA vision and conservation objectives

Review of current status

Presentation by Kate Ladell

The core of the MPA is the Conservation Objective

COs for some Oceans Act MPAs have been criticized as being too vague

Presentation of a very high level, very draft first order Conservation Objective

Has not gone through any internal process

Derived from input from Board, examples from other MPA’s

Wanted something meaningful for Race Rocks

Looked at reoccurring themes from the Values Input document, Ran a word frequency analysis. The result is very draft and will likely change

Trying to get a first order conservation objective to get at broad conservation values, but with a level of specificity to get at measurable values.

Comments and observations

A Board member asked whether education, awareness and public values could be part of a conservation objection, or is it only biological?

In this case, almost an urban MPA (high webpage traffic, ecoeducation, marina, sportsfishing)

DFO is urged to look at people impacts, not only biology

Kate Ladell mentioned we need to remember what the mandate of the Department is when crafting a CO for an Oceans Act MPA:

Does not include education and outreach

A Board member expressed that the Conservation Objective’s first statement sounded very negative

Why not just put a fence around it to prevent from human modification?

Would like to see protecting the Race Rocks marine ecosystem by education and promoting responsible use

A Board member expressed concern that research would not be allowed

This area should be used as a natural benchmark

We are trying to get towards sustainability

We need benchmarks to understand ecological sustainability

Action Item: 10-03-13 – DFO to put out Draft Vision and First Order Conservation Objective as a working document

Action Item: 10-03-14 – DFO to review the 2000 Proposal document to consider the conservation objective documented there in updating the vision and conservation objective.

Action Item: 10-03-15 – DFO to check with Rebecca Reid, Regional Director, Oceans, Habitat and Enhancement, on the addition of the “human” component to the CO; does this fit with the mandate?

Next steps for the Board

Aspects requiring Board input

Kevin Conley delivered a presentation

Discussion / preferred timeline

An individual board member reminded DFO of a previous Board recommendation that the management plan be revisited from the last process to see what the Board can draw from it, including Pearson College Management for the last 12-13 years

A Board member expressed a need to see how First Nations will fit into the management plan

Kevin Conley explained that there is text in the Agreement that speaks to integration with the Board

This suggests agreement both with First Nations and the Department that this is where we want to be heading

A Board member suggested extending the meeting because he feels that DFO need to be clear about explaining the value added, that it keeps being glossed over, and that DFO needs to understand this is a priority

This item was not on the original agenda and adequate time for a complete discussion was not available..

There was an inability to extend the meeting as requested as members had to leave due to prearranged travel reservations.

The option was provided to those who wanted to stay later to see the presentation.

Recommendation: DFO provide a presentation on why this MPA is a positive benefit

A Board Member offered that anyone interested in seeing a report that he prepared on DFO expenditures, please stay after the meeting

He had hoped it would be discussed today, but we ran out of time and he feels that it keeps getting dropped as an agenda item

Another Board member suggested that the Board put this as a presentation for the next meeting.

The option was provided to those who wanted to stay later to see the presentation.

Action Item: 10-03-16 – DFO include presentation by Garry Fletcher of expenditures on Race Rocks on the agenda next meeting.

Adjournment

Action Items:

Log Number	Responsible	Action	Status
09-11-01	DFO	Investigate lower than 300m flights over Race Rocks as part of the DFO creel survey. (carried over)
09-11-02	DFO	Ask for federal agency input to the table
09-11-03	Veronica Lo	Consult with other ENGOs and resubmit ENGO input (carried over)
09-11-04	RRPAB	Review completed Values Input document prior to next meeting (carried over)
09-11-05	RRPAB	Finalize Values Input document at next meeting (carried over)
09-11-06	DFO	Once RRPAB approved Values Input document, circulate to RRPAB members to distribute, as appropriate. (carried over)
09-11-07	DFO	Follow up on non-sectoral activity entries (carried over)
10-03-01	DFO	DFO to include a business case / plan outline on the agenda of the next meeting.
10-03-02	DFO	TOR to be circulated to Advisory Board and posted on the Consultation Secretariat webpage upon approval.
10-03-03	DFO	Kevin Conley to send out a map that shows only the proposed MPA boundary for confirmation.
10-03-04	DFO	DFO is to provide updates the Board on a timely basis, so that they can report to constituents.
10-03-05	DFO	DFO to add as an agenda item providing an explanation and clarification of the First Nations and Advisory Board Processes, including how they are linked (where advice goes and reporting back).
10-03-06	DFO	Kate Ladell to confirm with DFO Communications whether posting Race Rocks DFO documents to Racerocks.com is possible.
10-03-07	RRPAB	Board members to prepare a recommendation to state this (w.r.t to Socio-Economic Report)
10-03-08	RRPAB	Board members to prepare a recommendation that gaps be identified and prioritized and a commitment be made to research
10-03-09	DFO	DFO to review and report on progress with Esquimalt First Nation with respect to consultation.
10-03-10	Dan Kukat	Dan will report any information back to the Board (w.r.t. conversation with Chief Andy Thomas)
10-03-11	DFO	DFO will research the steps and rationale leading to the previous decision to pursue MPA designation.
10-03-12	DFO	DFO to send out a web link for the Oceans Act.
10-03-13	DFO	DFO to put out Draft Vision and First Order Conservation Objective as a working document
10-03-14	DFO	DFO to review the 2000 Proposal document to consider the conservation objective documented there in updating the vision and conservation objective.
10-03-15	DFO	DFO to check with Rebecca Reid, Regional Director, Oceans, Habitat and Enhancement, on the addition of the “human” component to the CO; does this fit with the mandate?
10-03-16	DFO	DFO include presentation by Garry Fletcher of expenditures on Race Rocks on the agenda next meeting.

Recommendations/Decision(s) Made/Deferred:

Recommendation from the Board: For the Board to meet on an “as-needed’ basis, versus bi-monthly

Recommendation from the Board: The socio-economic component of the OAR is not sufficient and is flagged as needing some work. DFO to draw expertise from Board and provide funding to complete socio-economic component. (Board members to provide clarified recommendation)

Recommendation from the Board: DFO provide a presentation on why this MPA is a positive benefit

Contact:

DATE”M/d/yyyy” 4/1/2010 PAGE 11

References on the Benefits of MPAs

Posted on Wednesday,March 10, 2010 by Garry Fletcher

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 Monday,March 8, 2010 by Garry Fletcher

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

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 Monday,March 8, 2010 by Garry Fletcher

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.


*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:


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 Monday,March 8, 2010 by Garry Fletcher

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.

	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.
	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.
	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,
	This and the chart above were used to designate coordinates of the area in the first MPA proposal.
	5. 2004: The areas in this map were proposed as a Rockfish Protection area by DFO.
	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.
	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 .
	8. The chart shown here was produced as a request to overlay the projected boundaries on the multibeam sonar map.
	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.
	10. The multibeam sonar image modelled from a southerly viewpoint
	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.
	Link to proposals options on alternate configurations of Buffer zones
	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

Me Again! Tuesday,April 30, 2024
Events – April 27 Sunday,April 28, 2024
Bird observations Friday,April 26, 2024
Wednesday Census – April 24 Friday,April 26, 2024
Ecoguardian Change-over day Friday,April 19, 2024
Flowers bloooming Thursday,April 18, 2024
Animal Census April 17, 2024 Wednesday,April 17, 2024
Moulting Elephant seals Tuesday,April 16, 2024
Animal Census April14 Sunday,April 14, 2024
Animal census April 14/2024 Sunday,April 14, 2024

Race Rocks Ecological Reserve-

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

Category Archives: MPA

DFO Vision and Objectives for a MPA Strategy

Reflections on the Role of Education and Outreach in the MPA Designation Process, 1998-2010.

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

Values Input Statements from each of the Community representatives on the Race Rocks Advisory Board

Aside

Summary Report Race Rocks Public Advisory Board Meeting #3

RRPAB meeting #3 minutes, March 24, 2010

References on the Benefits of MPAs

Options on Alternate Configurations of Buffer zones

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

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