This file is designed for the use of the Race Rocks Advisory Board in order to make available in one index, the resources that are most relevant to the Marine Protected Area Designation Process.
Category Archives: MPA
, the Race Rocks Area includes a link to RRAB involvement .
Proposed boundary areas
Proposed boundary areas detail
DFO expenses from Access to Information Request
CONTENTS of this File:
1. Background and Rationale for this report .
3. Table 1: Yearly budgets, 1999-2010
4. Figure 2: Detailed overview of DFO expenditures on Race Rocks
5. Table 2: Detailed overview table, 1999-2010
6. Figure 3. Pie chart showing expenditures for five categories.
7. Table 3. List of Individual Expenses for the Race Rocks MPA 1999-2010
8. Example of Ecotourism report done for First Nations :2006
(668 KB.pdf file)
9. ATIP Report : A200900266_2010-02-09_09-00-22.pdf (6MB.pdf file)
11. Condensed version with headers removed, showing graphs.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:
Upon receiving this report, I was surprized to note several features:
1. The fact that there was a significant budget for the creation of the Race Rocks MPA almost every year from 1999 to 2010, when the RRAB (Race Rocks MPA Advisory Board ) had been effectively shut down in 2002.
2. The fact that in many years a significant portion of the budget remained unspent at the end of the DFO fiscal year when the process of management of this ecosystem and designate MPA was still being carried on by Lester Pearson College without any financial support from DFO.
3. The large portion of the cumulative budget over the 11 years that was designated for First Nations Liaison and continues to be designated, so far without any evidence of an outcome. ( process still ongoing as of Sept, 2011–)
4. The unavailability of written records showing the deliverables for most of the contracts.. hopefully in the interests of transparency and resource availability they are still to come from DFO.
5. When I made a request for the #8 report above: 2006 report on ecotourism, there was some concern about confidentiality expressed by DFO and then the pdf file referred to above in number 8 was released by DFO. This report, which it turns out after checking with the author of the document, was originally a generic power point presentation, which was never presented to the First Nations groups by the contractor. The simplicity and lack of quality directed a this specific case, represented by an expenditure of $19,000 is obvious. Furthermore, I consider the language and the content of the report to be patronizing to the First Nations who commissioned it and it only leaves me questioning the lack of oversight represented by this expenditure .
6. A request for further explanation of many of the contracts has been made to DFO and I will update this space if and when information is available.
7. The analysis for The Bowie Seamount MPA has so far not been done, but I plan on doing it as well as time allows in order to have comparative figures available.
8. One of the requests in my ATIP that they were not able to accommodate was for similar figures for the creation phase as well as the operation phase for the other MPAs in Canada, the majority of which are on the East Coast. I urge the DFO to make this available or if necessary other individuals to go through the ATIP process in order to retrieve this information and make it public.
9. I was struck by the fact that during the course of 11 years, not one cent was devoted by DFO to doing on the ground scientific research that could meet the GAPS in scientific knowledge that I identified early in the Pilot MPA process in April 1999 at the Race Rocks Ecological Overview Workshop . Furthermore, no funds were ever forthcoming for the ongoing operation of the designate MPA. ( Refer to year 2001 proposal )
10. As per a comment recently of one member of the current Advisory Board, “If DFO really is serious about public advice from an MPA Advisory Boards, It should make all information like this freely and easily available to the Board members.”
11. I would like to thank the individuals in the DFO Access to Information and Privacy office for their advice and cooperation during the process involved in this ATIP request.
On March 17, 2010, I sent an e-mail to our RRPAB representative from of the Oceans Habitat and Enhancement Division of Fisheries and Oceans Canada in Nanaimo. He had agreed by phone to help clarify some of the specific questions I had about some of the items in the list of expenditures. Below are the results of that query, with his responses in green.
Response April1, 2110
Based on discussion with my manager and our ATIP staff, I suggest that you submit your request for records outlined below through ATIP. In reviewing the records you’re requesting, I note that many of them are not in my own files. Further, going through ATIP provides greater certainty that the records you receive have taken into consideration confidentiality concerns.
I did quickly go through your list below with some responses that you may find useful in posing specific questions to ATIP. To the extent you can keep your questions specific, it would certainly help reduce the search time estimates. Also keep in mind though, that I have files from past staff in boxes. Though they’re labelled to some extent, if I receive an ATIP for files and I know those past staff have had some involvement in the programs relevant to the records, I’m obliged to include in my search estimates the time to go through the boxes that could potentially have relevant records. As mentioned below in a number of spots, I’m not familiar with some. By that, I largely mean that your description didn’t ‘ring a bell’ with me which would suggest that I won’t have the financial records associated in my own files.
1. I mentioned I am missing the March 31 2008 end of year report of expenditures which may have been lumped in with the Endeavour project number.
As mentioned in my email, fiscal year 2008/09 activities included only First Nations liaison work through Aaron Reith and the Socio-economic overview and analysis report (contract carried out by Sunderman). As I understand, those records were provided to you, but may have had a date of 2009.
2. Also although Lisa sent me the Endeavour /Race Rocks end of year summary for March 2009, It is difficult to separate RR from Endeavour in that one.. Is there any further clarification such as Total Line Object figures which may help me to pick out the Race Rocks specific expenditures.
As mentioned above, March 2009 relates to fiscal year 2008/09 and I’ve listed the items related to that year.
3. I have come across another report that I am unsure about:
Feb 20/01 M.Pakenham Conference Fees? $340.16
I believe he delivered a presentation to this conference as at least I have seen reference to it in a googled file , however it may be useful to have the whole presentation ( presumably a power point in pdf ) if it is still available.
I do not have this presentation. I would not be confident that it could be readily located. A conference presentation may also have limited utility. That is, I don’t know whether Marc would have written and followed speakers notes written in the presentation. It sounds like you’ve googled the conference, I would suggest the proceedings of the conference would potentially be at least as useful to you.
4. Mar30/00 CRD VEHEAP contribution $6000.00. What is VEHEAP ..of the CRD was anything produced as a result of this.
VEHEAP stands for Victoria and Esquimalt Harbours Environmental Action Plan. I don’t have records of this. Further, I would suggest that this was an activity more related to our Integrated Management Programs rather than Race Rocks.
5. Was a report made available from this: Jan29/02 Env.consult , Environment/Environnment 0500 726000008186 $10,000.00
I’m not familiar with this.
6. Is there documentation or report on this one? Apr9 Apr/02 sci/env consult Luanne Chew Consulting Services for Completion of MPA Design Reports.
$5000.00
I’m not familiar with this.
7. When it says ” as per attached statement of work” are those statements available and can they be made public.
as in
——–June 30/09-July13/09-Aaron Reith&Co Community Liaison for First Nations with Respect to the designation process for the Race Rocks Marine Protected area. See the attached statement of work
——Feb 05/04 –To suport the engagement of Select Douglas Treaty First Nations as per attached statement of work. $15,000.00
——and 17 Aug,18 July 2004 –Songhees First Nation Support the ongoing negotiations of select Douglas Treaty First Nations in SVI in Broad Discussions related to Marine Aquatic Resources /To support neg. with Fed and Prov. Gov’ts of a framework for the cooperative mgt. as per statement of work $25,000.00
That would be a question best dealt with through filing an ATIP
8. What is meant by protection services in this one? and to whom did it get paid?
Feb08, Jan 09/2005 Security Additional Meeting, Protection Services ( Guardians, Commissionaires, security Guards etc.) $5,000.00
I ‘m not familiar with this.
9. October 99 to December 2000 Axys Environmental Consulting.. Socio-Economic Overview of RR — Is this the same one we have been looking at recently? if not could we get a copy for our resource files.
This is the same as the Sunderman report provided to the RRPAB and referenced below.
10. It also is apparent that the socio-economic study update , I believe done in 2009 Prepared by:Randy Sunderman Peak Solutions Consulting Inc. Kamloops, BC does not seem to be included anywhere in the expenditures up to January 2010, so could you check on that.
I had understood that was provided in the ATIP. Again, you may wish to check the records provided for fiscal year 2008/09.
11. Dec 99-Feb 2000 Gordon Hanson & Associates Consulting…. was there a report produced for this, and if not what was the nature of the contract?
I’m not familiar with this.
12. The Canadian Hydrographic survey (done back in 1999, that used the multi-beam SONAR ) does not seem to be represented as far as I can determine. This is probably because it was done by another part of the department, could you check into whether that cost is available as it would be a relevant science portion.
You are correct, it would have been financially coded in Canadian Hydrographic Services (CHS) coding. It may have been Oceans funded, but there could have been a budget transfer to Science Branch for the CHS expenditure.
Thanks for your attention to this. I hope this is not too many questions to pursue. If you can’t resolve all of them we will have to live with that.
The above comments in the Analysis and Discussion represent the opinion of Garry Fletcher and are not to be interpreted as being the opinions of any other organization or individuals unless indicated otherwise. It is my hope that it can lead to a level of accountability in expenditure by DFO, and transparency to the public about this process.
Garry Fletcher
Victoria, BC
March 25, 2010
(updated April 20, 2010–GF.)
Race Rocks Public Advisory Board Meeting ,November 26, 2009 meeting#2
Race Rocks Public Advisory Board Meeting #2 at Pearson College, Metchosin, November 26, 2009: Minutes Continue reading
Values Input Table for DFO MPA discussion
Lester Peasron College produced the following Values Input Table as part of the discussions for the MPZ Advisory Board.
| VALUES INPUT TABLE: for DFO Race Rocks MPA Advisory Board Process.Past, Present, Future Use 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: http://www.racerocks.com/racerock/history/rrerhist.htm 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, From the 2005 report on State of Ecological Reserves in BC, ” For the past several years the Ministry has regularly stated that it is committed to shared stewardship and partnerships. Such a commitment by the Ministry requires innovative approaches and resources. The Race Rocks Ecological Reserve is clearly exemplary from a shared stewardship, ecological protection, public education and applied research perspective.” Pearson College has supported student research at Rocks , and the faculty and students have assisted outside scientists in research projects there. 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. and 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. Lester Pearson College has a high level of participation in R&D and energy projects such as the AXYS wind resource assessment buoy testing 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. 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. Ecological features of importance: It is the largest marine mammal haulout and birthing colony on southern Vancouver Island and a Northern Elephant seal birthing colony, a harbour seal birthing colony, a haulout for a large colony of Northern ( Steller’s) sea lion from August to April, and a haulout for a large colony of California sea lions especially Sept. to December each year. The college has supported research on hydroids by Dr. Anita Brinckmann-Voss leading to the identification of over 65 species of that group of cnidarians, several which are new species records. In the racerocks.com taxonomy files, an inventory featuring all individual species from the island is continually being updated as new photographs, videos and observations are available. A large bank of video archives also forms a core of the documentation of animals and events on the island, and the Daily Log section provides a record of daily happenings on the island from the viewpoint of the resident ecoguardian, a monthly photo gallery provided by a viewer using the remote camera, and a log of updates to the website of resources for Race Rocks.
The geology: and other physical factors of the area are unique as well and provide a special set of habitats to a large number of species. Cultural features of importance The island has a historic light station and has hosted generations of pioneering light keeper families who survived under difficult conditions. A year from now, in December 2010, the light tower marks its 150th year as a guiding beacon for those plying the waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. In recent years, our investigations on the rock mounds on the island have led them to be identified as pre-contact First Nations burial mounds from a culture that thrived in the area from 1000 to 1500 years ago, and then disappeared . In the year 2000 with the assistance of a First Nations elder, we sought the place name for Race Rocks from a another elder, the late Tom Charles , and were granted permission then to use the Klallum name Xwayen, the area of swift flowing water. Race Rocks is essentially in the geographic centre of the Salish Sea. The first peoples of that sea recognized the close relationship between the land and the sea and we have always dedicated on the home page of racerocks.com, an icon which changes with the 13 stages of he moon as recognized by that culture. Human Threats to any of the important features. There is ongoing concern for boat traffic, noise and effluent that goes with it, speed reduction and viewing distance. Airline overflights continue to cause occasional disruption to the mammal and bird colonies. The implementation of the DFO regulations on Marine wildlife viewing are long overdue.http://www.racerocks.com/racerock/admin/disturbances.htm The threat of an oil or chemical spill is always possible in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. This would be heightened if there is an increase in Juan de Fuca Tanker Traffic and removal of the moratorium on offshore drilling. The disposal of wastes and bilge water from all ships and the increasing onset of Cruise lines operating in the area is a real concern. The rockfish protection area should be maintained and strengthened so that threats to marine mammals are reduced and stock recovery in the area is enhanced. Other threats to the area A general statement of your vision for the area The commitment of volunteers, faculty, staff and students of Pearson College over the last 30 years in assembling the resources of Race Rocks and then making them available on racerocks.com and racerocks.ca is evidence of how we value maintaining the ecological integrity of the reserve, and wish to continue sharing it with the world. We plan to continue to support the activities and programs currently underway; improve on them and support new activities and endeavours that will add to our understanding and continued protection of the ecosystem. The College is committed to explore and expand its research and education opportunities available at RR and maintain a long term presence as the custodian of the Ecological Reserve. It will continue to demonstrate the use and integration of sustainable resources and renewable energy with the goal to reduce the emissions from our operations to an absolute minimum. Since de-staffing of the station by the Coast Guard in 1997, Lester B. Pearson College has hired Ecoguardian staff to be resident on Race Rocks and has raised over $1 million for operating costs at Race Rocks in the past 12 years of operation. Pearson College will continue to employ staff as Ecoguardians and station operators year round. Currently a full time resident marine scientist holds this position. Why is the Area important to you? |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
Race Rocks Public Advisory Board Terms of Reference 2010
Race Rocks Public Advisory Board Terms of Reference
See the final version approved by DFO
Introduction | Purpose | Objectives | Participation, Roles and Responsibilities | Participants
Process for Formulating Recommendations | Meetings | Deliverables | Timelines
1. Introduction
Section 35 (1) of the Oceans Act provides the authority for the designation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). An MPA may only be established for one or more of the following reasons. The conservation and protection of:
Commercial and non-commercial fisheries, including marine mammals and their habitats;
Endangered or threatened species and their habitats
Unique habitats;
Marine areas of high biodiversity or biological productivity;
Any other marine resource of habitat as is necessary to fulfill the mandate of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
DFO is considering designating the Race Rocks marine area as an MPA for a number of reasons:
As a transition zone between the Pacific Ocean and coastal waters, the area is renowned for its exceptional diversity of marine life.
It is an area of high biodiversity and biological productivity.
It is important habitat for marine mammals and the area provides habitat for threatened species.
The area has cultural significance to local First Nations. There is recognition that, should a Marine Protected Area (MPA) be established, the Government of Canada as represented by DFO will work cooperatively with the First Nations in the care and management of the MPA towards a common vision for the MPA.
The Race Rocks group of islets and submerged land was designated as an Ecological Reserve in 1980 under the province of British Columbia’s legislative authority. A cooperative management relationship with the Province has been developed with Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific. DFO and BC Parks, in collaboration with First Nations, stakeholders and the public, are aiming to develop further management strategies to support conservation objectives for the area. To aid in this purpose the Race Rocks Public Advisory Board (RRPAB) has been convened with representation from a number of stakeholder groups and levels of government. Continue reading
Thoughts on Marine Protected area and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans consultation process for Race Rocks Ecological Reserve -FER
By Mike Fenger and Garry Fletcher ( Board members of Friends of Ecological Reserves)
Canada has a less than 1% of its marine ecosystems in Marine Protected Areas status and BC has been slower than the Maritime Provinces lagging at less than < 0.5%. Currently there are two off shore seamounts that make up the BC Marine Areas system and these have been established through Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) lead consultation processes. Australia on the other hand is in the enviable position with 16% of their marine ecosystems in protected status. Table 1 shows the different Federal and Provincial Departments/Ministries with a mandate to manage some elements of the marine ecosystems. This Table shows the complexity of overlapping jurisdictions. The different purpose and jurisdictional tools
Formating for this table will be reestablished
Table 1. Federal and Provincial Marine Protected Area Programs (Courtesy of Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society)
_Parks Canada_Department of Fisheries and Oceans_Environment Canada_Ministry of the Environment – BC_Ministry of Agriculture and Lands – BC__Designation
National Marine Conservation Areas
Marine Protected Areas
Marine Wildlife Areas
National Wildlife Areas
Migratory Bird Sanctuaries
Provincial Parks
Provincial Ecological
Reserves
Wildlife Management
Areas
BC Marine Ecological Classification
Examples
Southern Strait of Georgia (proposed)
Gwaii Haanas (proposed)
Endeavour Hydrothermal
Vents
Bowie Seamount
Scott Islands (proposed)
Desolation Sound Marine
Park
Checleset Ecological Reserve
Legislation
National Marine Conservation Areas Act
Oceans Act
Canada Wildlife Act
Migratory Birds Convention Act
Park Act
Ecological Reserve Act
Wildlife Act
Planning tool for coastal planning, coastal management, and marine protected areas candidate identification.
Goal
Protect and conserve marine areas of significance as part of a representative network of protected areas.
Protect and conserve commercial and non-commercial fisheries resources, including endangered or threatened species, areas of high biodiversity or productivity, unique habitats, and marine mammals and their habitats.
Conservation of marine wildlife, with emphasis on marine birds, through the maintenance and restoration of supporting habitats.
Park Act:
Protect representative examples of natural diversity, and special natural, cultural heritage, and recreational features within BC.
Ecological Reserve Act:
Protect viable, representative examples of the natural diversity and exclude harvest of marine resources within the reserve.
Advance efforts to establish Marine Protected Areas.
Objectives
Representation of marine natural regions (physical, biological & cultural)
On-site interpretation
Public education & enjoyment
Sustainable use
Marine resources
Species and habitats
Endangered species/habitats
Unique habitats
Areas of high productivity
Biodiversity
Sustainable use
Wildlife/Migratory birds
Species and habitats
Endangered species/habitats
Productive, unique and sustainable habitats/ecosystems
Biodiversity conservation
Perhaps in response to a bigger unifying vision the BC Ministry of Environment has recently begun to develop an Ocean’s and Coastal Strategy which in addition to economic benefits also envisages maintaining and improving the health of marine ecosystems through ecosystem based management. This new broader look at marine ecosystems is a welcome addition that can potentially improve the long term viability of the marine based ERs. FER is advocating all marine-based ERs receive a buffer zone so the marine component of the ecosystem adjacent receives equivalent status whenever a marine protected area is declared. Table 2 lists currently established ERs that protect biological features such sea bird colonies and sea mammal breeding areas.
Table 2. Existing ERs to out from for a network of Marine Protected Areas system. Race Rocks (Bolded) is the only ER that is currently under a DFO lead process that may result in a marine protected area.
Annie Vallee (Triangle Island)
Balingall Islets
Baeria Rocks
Beresford
Brackman Island
Byers/Conroy/Harvey/Sinnett Islands Checleset Bay
Cleland Island
Canoe Islets
Dewdney and Glide Islands
East Redonda
Francis Point
Lasqueti Island
Lepas Bay Moore/McKenney/Whitmore Islands
Mount Maxwell
Mount Tuan
Robson Bight (Michael Biggs)
Pine/storm and Tree Islands (Duke of Edinburgh)
Klashkish River
Megin River
Oak Bay Islands
Race Rocks
Rose Islets
Rose Spit
Sartine
Solander
San Juan River Estuary
Satellite Channel
Ten Mile Point
Trial Island
Tashish River
Vladimir J. Krajina (Port Channel)
For locations of these ER access Existing ERs see the Ministry of Environment link for purpose statements
The Race Rocks Consultation process. FER is one of “stakeholders” participating in the four advisory group meetings scheduled for completion by spring of 2010. Garry Fletcher has a long involvement as the warden for this ER. I am a relative new comer to the 10 year consultation process and my input has mainly been to clarify what the Federal approach is to a system of protected areas. Other stakeholders associations represent, sports fishing interests, scuba divers, whale watching tour operators, marina operators, for example. The details of the meetings and advisory group are available at the Race Rocks Advisory Board site maintained by Pearson College. Absent from this advisory group meetings are First Nations though there is a first nations consultant present at the meetings. DFO is holding separate consultation with First Nations.
Race Rocks ER has a long association with Pearson College which has maintained infra structure on the island allowing this ER to function as an outdoor laboratory. As a result of this 30 year association Race Rocks has a level of monitoring and study which is unparalleled in other ERs. The accessibility of the research and monitoring is phenomenal and a visit to the award winning Race Rocks web site is all that is needed to illustrate the how information for Race Rocks ER is available.
As the Race Rocks ER warden Garry shared the following insights. It has been 10 years since the final ratification of Race Rocks as a Marine Protected Area ground to a halt. There is now a renewed urgency on the part of DFO to complete the designation process by next year. The Oceans Act of 1997 lays out very clearly the intent to protect complete marine ecosystems with the organisms and their habitat, however the new round of advisory meetings is concerned with only the designation of the water column of the existing Rockfish Protection area ( down to 40 metres). This does nothing to solve jurisdictional problems in managing the ecological reserve, and it does not bring together the role of Canadian Wildlife Service in the protection of Seabirds , the department of transport in the protection of the airspace above marine mammal haulouts and leaves those haulouts as well a responsibility of BC Parks for the 9 islets of the Race Rocks Archipelago.. First Nations still do have access, (as they always have from the Douglas Treaties,) to the living resources of the area, that arrangement trumped only by proven conservation needs.
Lester Pearson College through a long term lease from BC Parks has funded the management of the reserve for the past 10 years, something that is not sustainable in the long term without assistance from government. So far there is no firm indication that there will be any support for the support of on-site management. So what changes? We are beginning to wonder if the costs to establish this MPA have really been worth it.
Although federally established MPAs on the East Coast, (example Musquash in New Brunswick) involved a transfer of the provincial seabed to the federal government, the west coast provides a different scenario. The provincial government has made it clear that they will not allow any ceding of ownership of any seabed. (This policy is also what currently what is holding up the finalization of the Gulf Islands Marine Park as well.)
Some of the information in the article was distributed to the Advisory Group members and attached to minutes of the first meeting. It was not clear that all advisory group members are familiar with ERs and the importance of protection of representative and unique ecosystems of British Columbia. It is also unclear whether the importance to a system of natural benchmarks, research areas, educational resources and repositories of genetic materials and geologic features recognized by participants as critical to sustainability of marine systems.
The Ecological Reserve system – in concert with other elements of British Columbia’s protected areas system and resource management regime – supports protection, study and understanding of ecosystems – their resiliency, ecological processes and natural elements.
FER expectations raised at the October Advisory Group meeting for Race Rocks were.
• The Boundaries of a MPA need to be based on best available information and make ecological sense in the long term.
• There will be a system of protected marine areas.
• The location of the MPAs in addition to Race Rocks will strongly guided by conservation biology and best available science.
• MPA will be supported in legislation with objectives for MPAs similar to provincial legislation and include:
1. areas suitable for scientific research and educational purposes associated with studies in productivity and other aspects of the natural environment;
2. areas that are representative examples of natural ecosystems in British Columbia;
3. areas that serve as examples of ecosystems that have been modified by human beings and offer an opportunity to study the recovery of the natural ecosystem from modification;
4. areas where rare or endangered native plants and animals in their natural habitat may be preserved;
5. Areas that contain unique and rare examples of botanical, zoological or geological phenomena.
• Entry to reserves will be through permitting.
• There will be a commitment for effective enforcement.
• MPA will act a research benchmarks and monitoring sites for Federal and Provincial agencies to promote sustainable use of natural resources.
• Existing ERs and Terrestrial Protected Areas with a marine component will be reviewed as a starting point for a comprehensive network MPAs.
Additional observations
There is a no “target for a west coast or national system of MPA. Since there is less than 0.5% in BC it is unclear what the Federal government believes is necessary to safe guard the nationally managed marine resources and what is the time frame needed to build the a credible network of MPAs? Those managing the Race Rocks process were not able to refer to higher longer term direction. This leads to the conclusion that there appears to be no commitment or leadership towards more than one off MPAs at this point in time.
Clarification or development of the Federal and Provincial agencies of a common vision and a coordinated coast wide process leading to a scientifically based MPA is unclear.
The willingness of stakeholders and management agencies to embrace MPAs as a safety net for resource management and sustainability is unclear and it is not widely accepted as fundamental missing piece of resource management.
The integration of FNs is another layer of complexity and close linkages of FN cultures to the marine system indisputable. Since all marine ecosystems have been traditionally accessible to exploitation this adds an additional challenge. The willingness to forgo a previous access will depend on the clarification of benefits to the greater good over the longer term both to FN and other interests. Since we are not privy to the MOU between DFO and FN we do not know what is being discussed. There is not a great deal of confidence that the benefits of treating Race Rocks as no-take zone will be conveyed in this forum as it is unclear whether this even supported by DFO as part of a management tool for responsible sustainable marine ecosystem management as this has never been part of the DFO management paradigm and has no precedent in the historic DFO approach and consequently there is no research showing the benefits. Some references on the benefits have been amalgamated on the Race Rocks website.
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/eco_reserve/ecoresrv/ecoresrv.html
http://www.racerocks.com/racerock/admin/rrab/rrab.htm
https://racerocks.ca/racerock/rrab2/mpabenefit.htm
PAGE 5
Race Rocks Advisory Board Minutes Sept 25, 2009
Race Rocks Public Advisory Board Meeting (RRPAB), 25 Huron St. Victoria, September 25th, 2009: Minutes
Attendees:
Name
Organization
Doug Biffard BC Parks
Chris Blondeau Pearson College
Chris Bos Sports Fish Advisory Board
Erin Bradley Ogden Point Dive Centre/Dive Community
Paul Cottrell DFO
Sarah Davies DFO
Mike Fenger Friends of Ecological Reserves
Garry Fletcher Race Rocks Ecological Reserve Warden
Kelly Francis DFO
Veronica Lo CPAWS
Lesley MacDougall DFO
Angus Matthews Shaw Ocean Discovery Centre
Larry Paike DFO
Martin Paish Sports Fish Advisory Board
Glen Rasmussen DFO
Aaron Reith First Nations
Richard Taggart Pedder May Marina / Marinas & Sports Fishing
Mike Waters DND
Regrets:
Name
Organization
Cathy Booler Georgia Strait Alliance
Simon Pidcock Pacific Whale Watch Association
Dave Smith Environment Canada
Tomas Tomascik Parks Canada
Glen Rasmussen opened the meeting at 10:05
Introductions/purpose/missing sectors:
A question was asked regarding the timeline and commitment for the Race Rocks MPA in the context of future planned protected areas work. Is Race Rocks a stand alone, will there be many, a network?
Glen: the presentation includes context with respect to the national network, and how an MPA at Race Rocks fits in with the network plans, as well as with provincial obligations with the Ecological Reserve. In general, the current expected timeline for Race Rocks is to have the Regulatory Intent package ready to send to Ottawa by January – February, 2010 which will include three meetings of the Race Rocks Advisory Board.
Missing parties: Whale Watchers? Glen noted that the whale watching representative was unable to attend due to illness but he will attempt to make contact with him or with Dan Kukat to set up a bilat.
Research community: Suggested representatives included Verena Tunnicliffe, Phil Deardon, Rosalyn Canessa (UVic), Kai Chen, Chris Arby-Clark (UBC).
Transport Canada: anchoring and aircraft traffic are issues, so a TC rep would be useful.
Other ENGOs: WC2 – Glen hasn’t heard from them.
Municipalities: District of Metchosin
Discussion: concern regarding the separate process for First Nations relationships. While there was an understanding that the initial relationship development needs to take place separately, there was clear desire to have First Nations representatives at the RRPAB to ensure that a strong and meaningful connection can be made between the communities of user groups and First Nations groups. Aaron Reith noted that he would communicate this to the First Nations and pass along the invitation to have them participate in future RRPAB meetings.
Kelly Francis presented the history of the Race Rocks designation initiative:
There was confirmation among the RRPAB members who were active during the initial designation initiative that they felt the spirit of the initial agreement reached by the RRAB in 2000 had been betrayed as a result of modifications to the designation proposal which occurred once the proposal was sent to Ottawa. RRPAB members expressed their desire that reporting on lessons learned clearly state that the Gazetting process led to the failure to achieve designation. Although all participants in the Pacific Region had agreed to the regulatory intent, this was not reflected in the draft designation regulation which appeared in the RIAS and Chapter 1 of the Canada Gazette,
ACTION ITEM: change the PowerPoint presentation – slide “and that’s where it went sideways” to reflect that the RRAB had worked very hard to achieve agreement on the values, objectives, boundaries and prohibitions language for the Race Rocks MPA designation proposal, and indicate that the RRAB was not consulted on subsequent amendments to the wording of the regulation in Ottawa which undermined both the process and the contribution of the RRAB.
There was a query regarding where the conversations of the RRPAB will be recorded, how they will be used and made available. The response was that they will be reflected in the meeting minutes and notes, and an action item list will be developed, including changing the PowerPoint presentation to reflect the views of the board. In addition to the lessons learned from the Race Rocks initiative, there are now precedents for cooperative management regimes as a result of the designation of the Bowie Seamount MPA, and more experience with how to develop regulations for MPAs.
Doug Biffard provided context regarding the Province of BC Ecological Reserve (ER) designation for Race Rocks:
Race Rocks was designated an ER in 1980, as a benchmark example of a less disturbed ecosystem for research purposes, and as an area for public education regarding the value of conserving special ecosystems. The ER designation provides protection for the land masses, as well as the seabed out to the boundaries of the ER; a DFO-designated MPA would provide additional protection for the water column and its associated aquatic life. The outstanding issues are to ensure that there is Federal protection to ensure extraction (for recreational and commercial purposes) are prohibited within the boundaries of the protected area, and that there is a dialogue with Transport Canada to express a desire to limit anchoring and aviation disturbance for Race Rocks.
Glen Rasmussen presented context regarding the national network of MPAs:
Chris Bos provided clarification with respect to the Southern Strait of Georgia NMCA (Parks Canada): a feasibility study is taking place, and as effective management of the NMCA would require the Province to transfer the ownership of the seabed to Parks Canada, the Province is awaiting the results of the feasibility study before transferring seabed ownership.
General discussion regarding the number of MPAs or protected areas in the region. Concerns ranged from criticism that compared with the East Coast, the Pacific Region doesn’t have as many MPAs (generally due to the fact that the Pacific area is managed by one DFO administrative region, while there are 4 separate DFO administrative regions on the East coast, each with staff and resources to develop their own MPAs), to concern that there are a number of different agencies – Federal and Provincial – that are all working toward protecting areas of the marine environment using different legislative tools for different purposes. All agencies are working toward establishing protected areas in accordance with their individual legislative mandates and criteria, and one of the reasons for pursuing a network is to find convergence of the varied schemes to develop systems that can accomplish the objectives of all agencies. It was pointed out that from a stakeholder point of view, the current configuration of three separate Federal agencies running three separate processes to pursue different ways of closing areas to human use is frightening, cumbersome, limits effective engagement, and creates consultation burnout.
Glen Rasmussen presented the current MPA designation process:
General discussion regarding the Socio-Economic Overview and Assessment (SECOA) update.
Concerns with the update document: Sportsfish contact missing. It appears that the fishing section has been written without contacting recreational fishermen. There are 11,000 in the Victoria area. Much of the information seems to have been collected through contact with BC Parks and DFO staff, e.g. two employees of the DFO Statistics department are listed as the contact for commercial fishing. The dive community contact is an employee of one dive shop, not a sector association representative. Board representatives asked that this review be described as an overview only, and they were asked to provide the appropriate information and contacts through a take-home review of the SECOA after the meeting.
ACTION ITEM: RRPAB members review and provide necessary edits/additions to the draft SECOA
ACTION ITEM: PowerPoint presentation slide be changed to Socio Economic OVERVIEW only, not assessment.
General discussion regarding Race Rocks MPA proposed boundary: there were requests to reopen the development of boundary delineation along with the development of ecological objectives. Scientific data unavailable during the first process may now suggest more appropriate boundaries. However, the current designation process has been initiated on the understanding that it will build on the consensus reached during the previous process. The boundaries were developed based on agreement and support from all members of the previous RRAB, including the support of the SFAB. Current SFAB representatives have the authority to reach agreements based on the original boundaries, and changes to those boundaries would require a new round of consultation within their constituencies; a process that will delay their ability to participate and agree on the MPA boundaries. The argument was made that inappropriate boundaries could compromise the ability of the protected area to achieve its conservation objectives. Other comments included the clear recognition that the original boundaries were defined through a process of collaboration and compromise, to an area that was acceptable for conservation objectives and human users. The conservation objectives developed for Race Rocks will have to be developed with recognition of the limitations imposed by the size of protected area.
Glen Rasmussen presented the current work to develop a relationship between the Government of Canada (DFO) and First Nations (Beecher Bay, T’Souke, Songhees,):
Aaron Reith provided further comments from discussions with First Nations. The ‘no take’ language that was added to the Gazette 1 regulations during the first process caused a severe amount of mistrust and anger within the First Nations community. The work of First Nations chiefs and DFO staff in the past eight months has gone a long way to repairing the relationship damage from the previous process. First Nations see this as a very positive change and view the current process as a potential to build relationships in the community with the department, and the management board may set an example for future arrangements. Kelly Francis noted that the development of an agreement between a group of First Nations and DFO for the management of a MPA is a very special arrangement. Members of the RRPAB were eager to see the MOU at the earliest possible time, and stressed the importance of a transparent process for stakeholders and First Nations to know what is being discussed at each table. RRPAB members reiterated their desire to have meetings that included First Nations and stakeholders; Aaron noted that he would make an invitation to the First Nations for such a meeting.
Glen Rasmussen presented the MPA designation process:
RRAB members asked where costs of designation and operation are identified: if there are explicit commitments to dollar amounts from DFO for the operation of the MPA. Kelly Francis and Glen Rasmussen responded that the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement and the Triage Questionnaire explicitly indicate the costs and benefits of MPA designation, including environmental costs, costs to human users, and actual operational costs. While there are no specific dollar amounts, there is a clear statement recognizing the obligation and commitment of DFO to support the operation and management of the MPA to achieve its objectives, with some level of funding.
Glen Rasmussen presented the proposed boundary for the Race Rocks MPA:
There is agreement from BC Parks, as well as DFO Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, that current boundaries for the Ecological Reserve, commercial fishery closures, rockfish conservation areas, and other closures, will be modified to reflect the accepted boundary for the MPA for consistency. The currently proposed boundary remains largely similar to the 20 fathom boundary agreed upon in the previous process; however, the boundaries will be described using coordinates rather than depth contours as those are not an acceptable method of delineation. The current proposed boundary forms a straight – edged polygon, similar in size to the current Rockfish Conservation Area boundaries and will be described using coordinates that are determinable through the use of GPS. General discussion included the rationale for a GPS-based boundary vs. a distance from shore boundary. It was determined that for the recreational boater they would be more likely to have the on board technology needed (GPS) to determine their coordinates, but unlikely to have radar necessary to determine distance from a point. There was also discussion of the need for markers on the water to mark the protected areas boundary; operational needs such as boundary markers will be addressed during the development of the management plan.
ACTION ITEM: Mike Waters will provide a DND danger template to add to Glen’s boundary slides.
ACTION ITEM: Glen will add the multibeam data to the boundary map and send to RRPAB members.
Glen Rasmussen led the values discussion and asked if the values identified during the original process are still valid and accurate.
Garry Fletcher noted that Race Rocks is now included as a North America Marine Protected Area Network (NAMPAN) site.
ACTION ITEM: reassess the values from the previous process and provide edits.
Stakeholder input table: Glen Rasmussen introduced the stakeholder input table and asked for a volunteer sector representative to work through the table as an example.
Erin Bradley and Doug Biffard agreed to include their feedback on behalf of the dive community. The stakeholder input table will be sent to all RRPAB representatives to complete on behalf of their respective sectors.
A question was raised about what physical extent to place on comments for the table: e.g. the values for the area may be localized (high current brings high mammal population etc), while the impacts may be from beyond (e.g. DND blasting outside of MPA boundaries affects mammal and bird behaviour). Glen Rasmussen suggested keeping comments relevant to those components that are within the proposed boundary, with the recognition that there are outside impacts that may need to be addressed within designation or within the management plan.
It was suggested that DND should perhaps not be included in the ‘sectors’ column of the table, as they have no direct interest in Race Rocks, but are instead a direct impact on Race Rocks. The input from DND would not necessarily include the components of the area they find valuable, but rather include a justification/rationale for their need to impact the area.
Glen suggested that the impact of DND to the area would likely be identified through the risks reported by other sectors. The potential or realized impacts of any human use within the proposed MPA boundaries should be recorded, and DFO will work to review, seek changes to the activities if possible or mitigate to minimize impact. For example, DFO has been working with DND to review DND’s practices and mitigate impacts.
Glen Rasmussen presented the RRAB roles and responsibilities. RRPAB members stressed that the spirit of community cooperation has always been, and will continue to be, an important asset. Glen noted the MOU that is currently being reviewed within the First Nations communities includes a recognition of the need for a relationship with the Province of BC, and with the community of other interests in Race Rocks.
It was suggested that the RRAB and FN meet at Pearson College, as the college has been designated an appropriate place for sharing between First Nations and other communities. Chris Blondeau agreed and extended the invitation to hold a meeting there.
Glen also noted that a draft Terms of Reference (ToR) has been developed for the RRPAB, similar to the ToR developed in the previous process, and asked members to review and comment on it.
ACTION ITEM: RRPAB members to review and comment on the draft Terms of Reference.
ACTION ITEM: Each organization provides / share links to their vision documents to promote greater understanding throughout the RRAB.
ACTION ITEM: agree on next meeting date.
Summary of ACTION ITEMS:
DFO: change the PowerPoint slide to reflect that the failure occurred in Ottawa
RRPAB members: review and provide necessary edits/additions to the draft SECOA
DFO: PowerPoint slide changed to Socio Economic OVERVIEW
Mike Waters: provide a DND danger template to add to Glen’s boundary slides
DFO: add the multibeam data to the boundary map and send to RRAB members.
RRPAB members: reassess the values from the previous process and provide edits.
RRPAB members: review and comment on the draft Terms of Reference.
RRPAB members: provide / share links to their organization’s vision documents
RRPAB members: agree on next meeting date.
RRAB Agenda, Sept 25, 2009
Race Rocks Marine Protected Area Public Advisory Board–Agenda
Date: September 25th, 2009
Time: 10:00am to 2:00pm
Location: Canadian Coast Guard Station, 25 Huron Street, Victoria
Meeting Room: Administration Building, J. Wedge Board Room
Persons Invited: See attached list*
Welcome and IntroductionsPurpose of today’s meeting: expected outputs
|
10:00 – 10:15 |
| Presentations about the project and the Race Rocks areaPast work (Kelly Francis)
Provincial objectives for the ER (Doug Biffard) A Federal Marine Protected Areas Strategy: (Glen Rasmussen) Parks Canada Environment Canada |
10:15 – 10:50 |
| The MPA Designation Process (Glen Rasmussen)Development of MPA objectives
First Nation agreements The role of the Public Advisory Board Regulatory Process for MPA Designation |
10:50 – 11:30 |
| General discussion (All)Values developed for the proposal to designate Race Rocks
What do we value, what do we want to conserve and understand |
11:30 – 12:00 |
| LUNCH | 12:00-12:30 |
| Stakeholder Input Table (All)Activities, Uses and Values
Discussion – values and risks |
12:30 – 1:30 |
| Discussion of next stepsMethod of contacting those present
Next Meeting / Next Correspondence Socio-economic Base Case Report – call for comments Terms of Reference for the Board – call for comments |
1:30 – 2:00 |
Take home materials
Background documents – Canada’s Federal Marine Protected Areas Strategy
MPA Process Slides from the presentation
Socio-economic Base Case Report
Draft Terms of Reference for the Board
Invitees list
RRPAB Meeting #1 minutes September 25th, 2009:
Race Rocks Public Advisory Board Meeting (RRPAB), 25 Huron St. Victoria, September 25th, 2009: Minutes
Attendees:
Name ——– Organization
Doug Biffard –BC Parks
Chris Blondeau–Pearson College UWC
Chris Bos–Sports Fish Advisory Board
Erin Bradley –Ogdne Pt. Dive Centre
Paul Cottrell–DFO
Sarah Davies–DFO
Mike Fenger–Friends of Ecological Reserves
Garry Fletcher–Race Rocks Ecological Reserve Warden
Kelly Francis –DFO
Veronica Lo –CPAWS
Lesley MacDougall–DFO
Angus Matthews –Shaw Ocean Discovery Centre
Larry Paike–DFO
Martin Paish–Sports Fish Advisory Board
Glen Rasmussen–DFO
Aaron Reith –First Natiions Liasion (contracted by DFO)
Richard Taggart –Pedder Bay Marina/marinas&Sports Fishing
Mike Waters–DND
Regrets:
Cathy Booler–Georgia Strait Alliance
Simon Pidcock–Pacific Whale Watch Association
Tomas Tomascik–Parks Canada
Dave Smith–Environment Canada
Glen Rasmussen opened the meeting at 10:05
Introductions/purpose/missing sectors:
A question was asked regarding the timeline and commitment for the Race Rocks MPA in the context of future planned protected areas work. Is Race Rocks a stand alone, will there be many, a network?
Glen: Provided a presentation on the context with respect to the national network, and how an MPA at Race Rocks fits in with the network plans, as well as with provincial obligations with the Ecological Reserve. In general, the current expected timeline for
Race Rocks is to have the Regulatory Intent package ready to send to Ottawa by January – February, 2010. The timeline will include three meetings of the RRPAB.
RRPAB members noted the absence of Marine Wildlife Viewing industry representation on the RRPAB. Glen noted that the whale watching representative was unable to attend due to illness but he will attempt to make contact with him or with Dan Kukat to set up a meeting to discuss appropriate representation by marine wildlife viewing industry on the RRPAB.
The following suggestions were made by the RRPAB to provide for more complete representation of relevant interests among RRPAB membership:
Research community: Suggested pursuing representatives of the research community to participate in the RRPAB. Individuals suggested included Verena Tunnicliffe, Phil Deardon, Rosalyn Canessa (UVic), Kai Chen, Chris Arby-Clark (UBC).
Transport Canada: anchoring and aircraft traffic are issues, so a TC rep would be useful. Other ENGOs: WC2 – Glen hasn’t heard from them.
Municipalities: District of Metchosin
Discussion: Concern regarding the separate process for First Nations relationships. While there was an understanding that the initial relationship development needs to take place separately, there was clear desire to have First Nations representatives at the RRPAB to ensure that a strong and meaningful connection can be made between the communities of user groups and First Nations groups. Aaron Reith noted that he would communicate this to the First Nations involved in the Area of Interest discussions and pass along the invitation to have them participate in future RRPAB meetings.
Kelly Francis presented the history of the Race Rocks designation initiative:
There was confirmation among the RRPAB members who were active during the initial designation initiative that they felt the spirit of the initial agreement reached by the RRPAB in 2000 had been betrayed as a result of modifications to the designation proposal which occurred once the proposal was sent to Ottawa. RRPAB members expressed their desire that reporting on lessons learned clearly state that the Gazetting process led to the failure to achieve designation. Although all participants in the Pacific Region had agreed to the regulatory intent, this was not reflected in the draft designation regulation which appeared in the RIAS and Chapter 1 of the Canada Gazette.
ACTION ITEM: Change the PowerPoint presentation made by Glen – slide “and that’s where it went sideways” to reflect that the RRPAB had worked very hard to achieve agreement on the values, objectives, boundaries and prohibitions language for the Race Rocks MPA designation proposal, and indicate that the RRPAB was not consulted on subsequent amendments to the wording of the regulation in Ottawa which undermined both the process and the contribution of the RRPAB.
There was a query regarding where the conversations of the RRPAB will be recorded, how they will be used and made available. The response was that they will be reflected in the meeting minutes and notes, and an action item list will be developed, including changing the PowerPoint presentation to reflect the views of the board. In addition to the lessons learned from the Race Rocks initiative, there are now precedents for cooperative management regimes as a result of the designation of the Bowie Seamount MPA, and more experience with how to develop regulations for MPAs.
Doug Biffard provided context regarding the Province of BC Ecological Reserve (ER) designation for Race Rocks:
Race Rocks was designated an ER in 1980, as a benchmark example of a less disturbed ecosystem for research purposes, and as an area for public education regarding the value of conserving special ecosystems. The ER designation provides protection for the land masses, as well as the seabed out to the boundaries of the ER; a DFO-designated MPA would provide additional protection for the water column and its associated aquatic life. The outstanding issues are to ensure that there is Federal protection to ensure extraction (for recreational and commercial purposes) are prohibited within the boundaries of the protected area, and that there is a dialogue with Transport Canada to express a desire to limit anchoring and aviation disturbance for Race Rocks.
Glen Rasmussen presented context regarding the national network of MPAs:
Chris Bos provided clarification with respect to the Southern Strait of Georgia NMCA (Parks Canada): a feasibility study is taking place, and as effective management of the NMCA would require the Province to transfer the ownership of the seabed to Parks Canada, the Province is awaiting the results of the feasibility study before transferring seabed ownership.
General discussion regarding the number of MPAs or protected areas in the region. Concerns ranged from criticism that compared with the East Coast, the Pacific Region doesn’t have as many MPAs (generally due to the fact that the Pacific area is managed by one DFO administrative region, while there are 4 separate DFO administrative regions on the East Coast, each with staff and resources to develop their own MPAs), to concern that there are a number of different agencies – Federal and Provincial – that are all working toward protecting areas of the marine environment using different legislative tools for different purposes. All agencies are working toward establishing protected areas in accordance with their individual legislative mandates and criteria, and one of the reasons for pursuing a network is to find convergence of the varied schemes to develop systems that can accomplish the objectives of all agencies. It was pointed out that from a stakeholder point of view, the current configuration of three separate Federal agencies running three separate processes to pursue different ways of closing areas to human use is frightening, cumbersome, limits effective engagement, and creates consultation burnout.
Glen Rasmussen presented the current MPA designation process:
General discussion regarding the Socio-Economic Overview and Assessment (SECOA) update.
Concerns with the update document: Sportsfish contact missing. It appears that the fishing section has been written without contacting recreational fishermen. There are 11,000 in the Victoria area. Much of the information seems to have been collected through contact with BC Parks and DFO staff, e.g. two employees of the DFO Statistics department are listed as the contact for commercial fishing. The dive community contact is an employee of one dive shop, not a sector association representative. Board representatives asked that this review be described as an overview only, and they were asked to provide the appropriate information and contacts through a take-home review of the SECOA after the meeting.
ACTION ITEM: RRPAB members review and provide necessary edits/additions to the draft SECOA.
ACTION ITEM: PowerPoint presentation slide be changed to Socio Economic OVERVIEW only, not assessment.
General discussion regarding Race Rocks MPA proposed boundary.
There were requests to reopen the development of boundary delineation along with the development of ecological objectives. Scientific data unavailable during the first process may now suggest more appropriate boundaries. However, the current designation process has been initiated on the understanding that it will build on the consensus reached during the previous process. The boundaries were developed based on agreement and support from all members of the previous RRAB, including the support of the Sport Fishing Advisory Board (SFAB). Current SFAB representatives have the authority to reach agreements based on the original boundaries, and changes to those boundaries would require a new round of consultation within their constituencies; a process that will delay their ability to participate and agree on the MPA boundaries. The argument was made that inappropriate boundaries could compromise the ability of the protected area to achieve its conservation objectives. Other comments included the clear recognition that the original boundaries were defined through a process of collaboration and compromise, to an area that was acceptable for conservation objectives and human users. The conservation objectives developed for Race Rocks will have to be developed with recognition of the limitations imposed by the size of protected area.
Glen Rasmussen presented the current work to develop a relationship between the Government of Canada (DFO) and First Nations (Beecher Bay, T’Souke, Songhees,):
Aaron Reith provided further comments from discussions with First Nations. The ‘no take’ language that was added to the Gazette 1 regulations during the first process caused a severe amount of mistrust and anger within the First Nations community. The work of First Nations chiefs and DFO staff in the past eight months has gone a long way to repairing the relationship damage from the previous process. First Nations see this as a very positive change and view the current process as a potential to build relationships in the community with the department, and the management board may set an example for future arrangements. Kelly Francis noted that the development of an agreement between a group of First Nations and DFO for the management of a MPA is a very special arrangement. Members of the RRPAB were eager to see the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) at the earliest possible time, and stressed the importance of a transparent process for stakeholders and First Nations to know what is being discussed at each table. RRPAB members reiterated their desire to have meetings that included First Nations and stakeholders; Aaron noted that he would make an invitation to the First Nations for such a meeting.
Glen Rasmussen presented the MPA designation process:
RRAB members asked where costs of designation and operation are identified: if there are explicit commitments to dollar amounts from DFO for the operation of the MPA. Kelly Francis and Glen Rasmussen responded that the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement and the Triage Questionnaire explicitly indicate the costs and benefits of MPA designation, including environmental costs, costs to human users, and actual operational costs. While there are no specific dollar amounts, there is a clear statement recognizing the obligation and commitment of DFO to support the operation and management of the MPA to achieve its objectives, with some level of funding.
Glen Rasmussen presented the proposed boundary for the Race Rocks MPA:
There is agreement from BC Parks, as well as DFO Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, that current boundaries for the Ecological Reserve, commercial fishery closures, rockfish conservation areas, and other closures, will be modified to reflect the accepted boundary for the MPA for consistency. The currently proposed boundary remains largely similar to the 20 fathom boundary agreed upon in the previous process; however, the boundaries will be described using coordinates rather than depth contours as those are not an acceptable method of delineation. The current proposed boundary forms a straight – edged polygon, similar in size to the current Rockfish Conservation Area boundaries and will be described using coordinates that are determinable through the use of GPS. General discussion included the rationale for a GPS-based boundary vs. a distance from shore boundary. It was determined that for the recreational boater they would be more likely to have the on board technology needed (GPS) to determine their coordinates, but unlikely to have radar necessary to determine distance from a point. There was also discussion of the need for markers on the water to mark the protected areas boundary; operational needs such as boundary markers will be addressed during the development of the management plan.
ACTION ITEM: Mike Waters will provide a DND danger template to add to Glen’s boundary slides.
ACTION ITEM: Glen will add the multibeam data to the boundary map and send to RRPAB members.
Glen Rasmussen led the values discussion and asked if the values identified during the original process are still valid and accurate.
Garry Fletcher noted that Race Rocks is now included as a North America Marine Protected Area Network (NAMPAN) site.
ACTION ITEM: RRPAB reassess the values from the previous process and provide edits.
Stakeholder input table: Glen Rasmussen introduced the stakeholder input table and asked for a volunteer sector representative to work through the table as an example.
Erin Bradley and Doug Biffard agreed to include their feedback on behalf of the dive community. The stakeholder input table will be sent to all RRPAB representatives to complete on behalf of their respective sectors.
A question was raised about what physical extent to place on comments for the table: e.g. the values for the area may be localized (high current brings high mammal population etc), while the impacts may be from beyond. Glen Rasmussen suggested keeping comments relevant to those components that are within the proposed boundary, with the recognition that there are outside impacts that may need to be addressed within designation or within the management plan.
One participant suggested that DND should perhaps not be included in the ‘sectors’ column of the table, as they have no direct interest in Race Rocks. The participant suggested that DND activities instead represent a direct impact on Race Rocks. The input from DND would not necessarily include the components of the area they find valuable, but rather include a rationale for their activities in the area.
Glen suggested that the impact of DND to the area would likely be identified through the risks reported by other sectors. The potential or realized impacts of any human use within the proposed MPA boundaries should be recorded, and DFO will work to review, seek changes to the activities if possible or mitigate to minimize impact. For example, DFO has been working with DND to review DND’s practices and mitigate impacts.
(The following clarification was provided by the DND rep after discussion at the November 26 meeting: In completing this review DND has been using Race Rocks and the Coast Guard lighthouse to monitor the cumulative effects of all activities on the marine life living within the Race Rocks ecological reserve boundary. Due to the unique nature of DND’s activities and the fact their property is adjacent to Race Rocks DND is a key stakeholder who needs to be represented in the sectors column of the table).
Glen Rasmussen presented the RRPAB roles and responsibilities. RRPAB members stressed that the spirit of community cooperation has always been, and will continue to be, an important asset. Glen noted the MOU that is currently being reviewed within the First Nations communities includes recognition of the need for a relationship with the Province of BC, and with the community of other interests in Race Rocks.
It was suggested that the RRPAB and FN meet at Pearson College, as the college has been designated an appropriate place for sharing between First Nations and other communities. Chris Blondeau agreed and extended the invitation to hold a meeting there.
Glen also noted that a draft Terms of Reference (ToR) has been developed for the RRPAB, similar to the ToR developed in the previous process, and asked members to review and comment on it.
ACTION ITEM: RRPAB members to review and comment on the draft Terms of Reference.
ACTION ITEM: Each organization provides / share links to their vision documents to promote greater understanding throughout the RRAB.
ACTION ITEM: Agree on next meeting date.
Summary of ACTION ITEMS:
- DFO: change the PowerPoint slide to reflect that the failure occurred in Ottawa
- RRPAB members: review and provide necessary edits/additions to the draftSECOA
- DFO: PowerPoint slide changed to Socio Economic OVERVIEW
- Mike Waters: provide a DND danger template to add to Glen’s boundary slides
- DFO: add the multibeam data to the boundary map and send to RRAB members.
- RRPAB members: reassess the values from the previous process and provideedits.
- RRPAB members: review and comment on the draft Terms of Reference.
- RRPAB members: provide / share links to their organization’s vision documents
- RRPAB members: agree on next meeting date.
Visitors to Race Rocks
Glen Rasmussen, of the DFO Nanaimo office and a group of his counterparts from New Zealand made a trip with Garry and Chris to Race Rocks.