Details

Hits: 1120

Details

Hits: 1064

Details

Hits: 3338

SEHAB Member:    Jack Minard

Area: Central and North Vancouver Island

Community Advisors: Dave Davies and Stacey Larson

Date: 2/25/2017

Key Issues:

What top three points can you distill from community input to take to DFO RHQ?

1. Flood/Drought
2. Community perplexed as to why no one can do anything about

• PREVENTING continuing habitat losses
• upgrading aging enhancement infrastructure
• gain more funding for enhancement and restoration projects
• funding for priority projects that align with the WSP?

3. Much frustration around updates to the FA,WSP,WSA (Province) moving at what appears to be a glacial place. Is the WSP being aligned with enhancement and restoration priorities as per the Red Green and Amber status system of CU’s? How does the public access what is wrong where (according to CU status) so communities can align their project proposals with these priorities? DFO website directs to: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/index-eng.html for updates on CU statuses but when arriving at this site there is no access provided??? Is new Federal (replacing RFCCP) funding going to be aligned to WSP CU statuses and existing and developing specific watershed plans?

Submissions, Comments from Groups:

Courtenay should just go with the flow when it comes to flood management.

Project Watershed representatives gave a presentation to city council last week about "natural flood relief" options.

But one of the biggest opportunities to go that route became water under the bridge some 37 years ago.

That's when the Comox Valley Citizens Traffic Advisory Committee went to B.C. Supreme Court in May, 1980 seeking an injunction against the adjoining roadways to the 17th St. bridge, yet to be finished.

"The group says the road will act as a dyke on a flood plain," reported the Comox District Free Press.

Mr. Justice W.H. Wallace threw the petition out in July, 1980 saying the petitioners had "no reasonable claim."

The citizens committee effort was spear-headed by then-Comox alderman Alice Bullen, who had started her opposition to the 17th St. bridge project in 1977.

"These dogged actions – and I say dogged because they remind me of a bulldog with a bone who won't let go – should be condemned," thundered Comox Mayor George Piercy.

Comox alderman Bill Vincent told Bullen that if he were the mayor of Courtenay he'd punch her in the nose.

But, Bullen and her committee, which included engineer Ian Potts, turned out to be right about road work affecting the flood plain.

"When Highway 19a and the 17th Street bridge were built, the road fill and the bridge abutments restricted the flood flow to the west side of Comox Road and Highway 19a and created choke points in the river channel at the 5th Street and the 17th Street bridges," said the briefing note last week from Project Watershed.

Councillor Doug Hillian noted that the matter had been discussed with the highways ministry at the Union of BC Municipalities conference last year. Upgrades are apparently being planned for the "bypass", which is part of the problem.

Mayor Larry Jangula added that Highways recognizes the bypass is "like a dam" and they "need to punch holes in it".

Project Watershed director Don Castleden, and Wayne White, of the Tsolum River Restoration Society, told council that "natural flood relief" was the way to go in future.

They said short-term fixes, such as the "tall wall" recently installed by the city and the rip rap installed near the Fifth St. bridge to protect two buildings there, actually cause more problems.

Castleden said Project Watershed supports the concept of "managed retreat" from the floodplain – as buildings become old and need to be replaced, they're not.

The entire concept rests on "working with nature ... for the purpose nature intended" and focusing on flood relief, rather than flood protection.

"The reconnection to and rehabilitation of the old natural floodplain could help to minimize the depth of flooding and reduce subsequent property damage," said the Project Watershed briefing note.

Project Watershed recommended that the city impose a moratorum on further building in the floodplain, and to compile a list of properties to be considered for purchase that are in high risk areas for flooding.

"I don't know where the financing would come from," said Jangula about the recommendation to buy buildings.

But Councillor Doug Hillian said he thought Project Watershed was "bang on with the suggestions".

Solving Habitat Problems by Dealing with Land Use

One item I think you should know about is how the MVIHES has applied and is in the process of developing a Water Balance Model and Sediment Control plan for Shelly Creek (a small urban/rural watershed in the lower Englishman River.  We were successful in getting $6500 from PSF (application attached which outlines project rationale and deliverables) and support finding from RDN and City of Parksville (along with some funding from PWSBC and MVIHES) to get Jim Dumont developing the model and recommendations.  We are close to a roll out of Jim’s work in the coming months.  We will be pushing his recommendations at local politicians (who keep approving poor land use practices that harm streams) as well as developing a communications plan.

I know you have a strong background in this stuff, but this watershed is going to be an example of putting this WBM approach to work.

Let me know if you want more.

Cheers

 Dear Jack Minard,

It was a pleasure to meet with you and Stacey on September 14th, 2016. The advisory role you described brought us hope that our concerns regarding the Nimpkish Salmon would be heard.

‘Namgis First Nation has identified 3 concerns listed below that we are seeking your help with. I will attempt to elaborate on them to show that the government needs to assist ‘Namgis in putting the health of the salmon runs in the Nimpkish Watershed back to the way it was before logging, pesticide spraying, over fishing, and fish farming contributed to the devastation of the runs.

1. Chum Salmon Crashes in the Nimpkish River

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

In 1996, ‘Namgis First Nation Council were in negotiations with Greg Savard, DFO to allow ‘Namgis to have the chum salmon incubation numbers increased from 2 million eggs to 10 million eggs. The discussions were favourable and an Agreement in Principle was understood by the both parties at the close of the meeting.

You can imagine the disappointment when it was observed that very few fish returned to the Nimpkish River. Personally, I actually felt we were sabotaged. No one believed there could not be less than 3,000 fish so that was what went into the escapement record. The year after the crash (1997) the chum escapement was 70,000 and in 1998 it was up to 145,000+. Then in 1999, the second crash occurred. With this letter is a copy of a report that was given to council in 1999 on this matter.

Also attached is a copy of the records which shows the escapements to the Nimpkish. You need only look at the Chum Escapement column. I believe this is enough evidence to warrant some action on this neglected matter. Right now there is a plan to do helicopter flights to count this year’s chum escapement, providing more evidence to the lack of chum returning to the river. For decades ‘Namgis has been providing escapement estimates and this extra enumeration effort seems a waste of time when the people who have worked on this species already know the runs have all but disappeared.

CURRENT REQUEST

The Nimpkish is far from being the productive river it once was. As the graph above shows the chum numbers continue to decline. Currently there are two cycles that are almost non-existent and two cycles that are very poor. ‘Namgis has raised this concerned and it appears to not be getting the attention needed. It is hoped that you can raise this issue to the upper levels of DFO management so that they are aware of the dire situation that the Nimpkish Chum salmon are in. As a result of these huge declines of chum salmon millions of dollars have been spent by the local first Nations people purchasing low quality food due to not having Chum Salmon to harvest.

2. Nutrient Enrichment in the lakes of the Nimpkish Watershed to rebuild Sockeye Salmon stocks.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

In the late 1980s Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Lake Enrichment Program applied nutrients to the Woss and Nimpkish Lakes until 1989. Through this program the Nimpkish sockeye numbers were rebuilding, as evident with an estimated 362,000 adult sockeye returning to the Nimpkish River in 1992. Additionally, with similar timing the Gwa’ni Hatchery also stopped incubating sockeye in 1989.

In the summer of 2000, the ‘Namgis Hatchery staff counted approximately only 5,800 sockeye return in the adult assessment program. Through the Nimpkish Resource Management Board ‘Namgis lobbied DFO to do something to rebuild sockeye again. The Hatchery Manager insisted that the Nation wanted to re-activate its sockeye hatchery incubation program and also stated it wanted to carry on with the addition of liquid fertilizer to the lakes. Eventually with assistance from Kim Hyatt and Don McQueen both programs were up and running in 2001. Initially, the Pacific Salmon Foundation funded the Nutrient Enrichment Program and then through a request from Nimpkish Resource Management Board the program was funded by Canadian Forest Products. Since 2011 ‘Namgis has funded the Nutrient Enrichment Program. Additionally that year, the sockeye incubation ceased.

Unfortunately, in the spring of 2016 the ‘Namgis Administration could not afford to run the Lake Fertilization program anymore. This was devastating to the salmon enhancement program as Lake Fertilization is an important factor in ensuring the runs will be sustained. Sockeye is a huge part of the ‘Namgis First Nation’s diet. Until improvements are made to the current state of the ecosystem, the Nimpkish watershed lakes will not be able to provide enough nutrients to support the plankton chain which feeds the juvenile sockeye in their nursery, Woss and Nimpkish Lakes.

CURRENT REQUEST

1. It is hoped that you will be able to convince the upper management that the Nimpkish, which used to be the fourth largest sockeye producing river in BC, needs to become a priority for rebuilding the sockeye runs. ‘Namgis is seeking funds to continue fertilizing the Woss Lake (~$70,000 annually) and also to re-establish fertilizing the much larger lake the Nimpkish Lake (program costs would need to be re-evaluated as this program has not occurred in recent years).
2. The hydroacoustic surveys are an important part of the Lake Fertilization program. DFO staff have been doing these surveys and while DFO has undergone many cutbacks it is almost impossible to get outside funding into DFO to cover the cost of these surveys. In addition to the funding requested above, equally important is that DFO make the commitment to continue to complete 2-3 hydroacoustic surveys annually, otherwise

additional funding would be required to bring in another organization to complete the surveys.

Loss by not Food Fishing to help re-establish the stocks

To show the world how important sockeye are to the ‘Namgis First Nation, it should be known that for more than 25 years, the Nation did not fish the Nimpkish River. This voluntary stop to food fishing was to ensure that all the surviving adults returning could spawn to help with the rebuilding of the stocks. The Nation was told that if the run was over 250,000 returning sockeye, then a fishery could be entertained, provided there was a means of establishing fairly accurate escapement numbers. Even with all the enhancement efforts and the no food fishing (although there is still a lot of poaching occurring up the river) the sockeye escapement estimates have not neared 250,000.

In 2016, ‘Namgis had their first controlled fishery in the Nimpkish River. For years the ‘Namgis wanted to have a counter at the entrance to the river that would give a reliable count. A small percentile scale was made by the Hatchery Manager to use for harvest. As this was the first year, the target harvest was not met but, the percentile scale worked well for establishing a small food fishery, while still allowing the majority of the salmon to return to spawn.

I have also provided a worksheet to show conservatively what the people have lost in dollar value by giving up their harvesting, for sustenance of the Nimpkish River sockeye. Interpret the cost toward food purchases rather than salmon sustenance in those years.

3. Proper Enumeration Tool

CURRENT REQUEST

To assist in the management and potential harvest opportunities in the Nimpkish Watershed the ‘Namgis First Nation would like to see at least 3 DIDSON counters in the Nimpkish Watershed. One is needed at the lower Nimpkish River to estimate the overall return of sockeye into the Nimpkish Watershed. One is needed at the Vernon Lake outlet to see how many sockeye enter into that lake system and one DIDSON counter is needed at the outlet of the Woss Lake for the same reason. Woss Lake has been fertilized since 2000 and therefore it is imperative that the number of sockeye returning to that watershed be enumerated to better understand just how the Lake Fertilization is helping or not helping along with other knowledge that can be gained.

Yours Truly,

Henry Nelson

Gwa’ni Hatchery Manager

Success stories

We have installed a recirculation system for coho egg incubation.  We have successfully raised our coho eggs to fry with zero outbreaks of fungus and no chemical treatments of parasite S or any other chemicals.  We are reticulating the water through a combination of sand filter and UV light, with a two day battery backup in case of power outages. 

We have started experimenting with the use of venturies to increase the dissolved oxygen levels in our inflow waters with great success to date. This is a ongoing project.

We had late fixes done on our adult fence, and it did not make it in the river on time for the returning salmon.  However it was visually one of the best returns we have seen in the past 10 years.

We successfully restored both Little River and Scales Creek over the last four years and will be doing further restoration with our partners this year.

Down falls

Last year our water shed took a huge blow. A contractor hired by a local landowner is attempting to drain a wetland that feeds our river. This was done without a section 11 and has created serious harm to the salmon in our river.  This incident should end up in the courts and we are seeking assistance or advise that would help the speed of this process.  If the damage that has been done is corrected in a timely manner, it would mitigate the damage.   If it goes like most others similar cases it could take upwards of 10 years to even begin the repairs at which point major damage has already taken place and could take decades to reverse.

Haig-Brown Kingfisher Creek Restoration Update

In 2016, the Chum run was impressive, with over 500 spawners enumerated in Kingfisher Creek. With support of DFO and the Campbell River Salmon Foundation, Greenways Land Trust is continuing to implement some of the recommendations of the 2015 Kingfisher Creek Habitat Assessment.

Specific activities we have been working on in 2016 and will continue in 2017:

• In-stream 2016: removal of barriers to salmon migration, including building a weir to backwater the hung culverts on the West Branch in 2016, large woody debris installation, spawning gravel and boulder placement.
• In-stream 2017: continued efforts to improve the in-stream habitat quality will concentrate on several areas of the Mainstem and East Branch, such as; removal of barriers to salmon migration, increasing the flushing flows to improve water quality, large woody debris installation, spawning gravel and boulder placement.
• With the help of Greenways volunteers and various school groups, restoration and enhancement of the Riparian forest is continuing in 2017. Focussed on the East Branch, these efforts involve thinning of the dense understory of alders, removal of many invasive species and replanting diverse native conifer /shrub vegetation communities.

• Instream monitoring equipment has been installed throughout the Creek to collect water level data over the next 2 years. There are several critical issues of potential fish loss associated with an existing floodwater control structure in the West Branch, this monitoring information will inform the reengineering to reduce negative impacts.

Details

Hits: 6121

SEHAB Roundtable Report –– October 2016

SEHAB Member: Jack Minard

Area: Central and North Vancouver Island

Community Advisors: Dave Dacies and Stacey Larson

Date: September 26, 2016

Key Issues:

What top three points can you distill from community input to take to DFO RHQ?

1. No one in charge! This is a common observation. A great deal of frustration with no agencies attempting to stop damage at all, let alone BEFORE it occurs. There is no regulatory way to stop determined landowners who want to destroy habitat. Landowners know that they can pretty much do whatever they want these days because no one is paying attention except stewards and their only recourse is the ORR line and the ORR, C&P system is triaged to the point where only major projects get any attention. Stewards also express frustration about while their habitat is being destroyed the triage system is about “getting to yes” which is about destroying, altering and “using” habitat for corporate gain. This adds up to a complete disregard for habitat across the board which, of course leads to further reductions to abundance.
2. Aging CEDP Hatcheries and mixed messages about their future.
3. Concern over continuing declines in stock abundance (all species)

Stories:

A few examples of successes, failures, challenges.

North Island

The Namgis talk about dramatic drops in Chum numbers and that surveys are difficult to complete. They have already reduced the food fishery to allow for more spawners to get upstream, have applied for assistance to get more accuracy in their surveys but require more funding that is not forthcoming. They have initiated a fertilization program in the Nimpkish in the past but the funding is no longer available.

Sockeye returns have dropped to almost un-harvestable numbers!

The Nimpkish Watershed Planning process completed some years ago is not being implemented but the people involved are talking about resurrecting it, developing data to date and using the Plan to give weight to funding applications.

Stacey Larson has just been handed this whole new area and is playing a huge game of catch up on the CEDP situation.

Campbell River

The CR groups all talk about the ongoing damage being done to rivers and creeks with absolutely no recourse. They speak of a “consortium” of developers and builders who are running roughshod over stream and creeks all around the area.

As much as they report these infractions and concerns the less and less it seems that any agency can actually do anything about it.

Zeballos group speaks of the legacy left from historical logging and the related substrate movement reducing viable habitat throughout the area. There is reduced support for the hatchery production and members of the band along with community members are attempting to get it going again. They feel a distinct lack of support. They adamantly wish to reinstate the full productivity of the CEDP Hatchery, expand the species enhanced and increase their capacity to accomplish thisa.

Quadra Island stewards speak of dwindling coho. They have no data to actually prove this however and wish tooo install counting fences. To do this they need more support and funding. They do enjoy some support from the Campbell River Salmon Foundation but it is not enough.

The Campbell River Fish and Game club reports virtually no pinks returning this year even after completing transplants and instream incubator boxes. They continue to monitor.

Campbell River Estuary Committee are extremely concerned that the Province continues to authorize heavy metals at levels that are harmful. Ongoing restorations are required in the estuary but this work seems to have stalled.

Mining continues to be a major concern in the Campbell and Quinsam with arsenic levels ver troubling.

Black Creek group is concerned that several copper mining claims have been authorized by the Province at the exploration stage. They are extremely concerned that there is not a solid baseline established BEFORE these claims are explored and possibly developed. Water quality issues are well known and understood when copper deposits are disturbed. There is very little communication between the concerned citizens and the mining interests. They als say that the system is to support and allow as much mining as possible and DFO is currently seen as actively getting these projects to the active stage. The Ministry of Mines appears to be working for the mining companies and their interests and NOT in the best interest of the freshwater ecosystems or citizens.

Comox Valley

A great deal going on with much success!  The successes in the Comox Valley are attributable to having a steady and long-term CA presence. Groups of all sizes and capacity have had the tremendous support and ongoing expertise of our CA, Dave Davies. He has involved himself and by extension the department into assisting the stewardship community do a great job. The results are amazing.

Estuary projects, kelp and eelgrass plantings, recovery planning, excellent public, government staff and politician education, improved and ongoing community hatchery production, ongoing stock assessments, land protection initiatives, conservation strategies are all being carried out with coordination through the Comox Valley Conservation Strategy, our CA and the great volunteer Boards that are operating a plethora of effective organizations.

Mid-Island

The groups in the mid-Island area are also blessed with the long stability of the CA position here. A very similar story unfolds in this area thanks to some real effective community leaders supported long-term by their CA, Dave Davies.

Issues Specific to SEHAB’s Work Plan:

Submissions, Comments from Groups:

See above

Details

Hits: 5798

Salmon Enhancement and Habitat Advisory Board (SEHAB) Roundtable

Date: February 21, 2009

Area: Central Vancouver Island

Representative: Jack Minard

Challenges/Issues and Opportunities/Successes of the Volunteer Aquatic Stewards

Comments from fellow stewards such as “DFO does not know what habitat is anymore” is creating a huge gap in the ability for anyone to protect anything. Add to this reducing budgets and reductions in staffing and most volunteers working with the Department feel abandoned and certainly ill-supported.

Through all of this however, volunteerism is still strong. Numbers of volunteers have dropped off and some projects have had to be left undone but volunteer-based enhancement work continues to significantly support a wild fishery on our coast.

The energy to create and implement restoration projects have become much reduced. Both a reduction in available funding opportunities as more groups and agencies vie for the same pots of money and a general malaise growing due to the Departments alterations to the Fisheries Act are largely responsible. The overall effect is to undermine and throw into question the importance of this work and whether it would be protected after completion. This undermines volunteer energy significantly.

Coal Mine

Compliance Coal’s drive to complete the environmental assessment coupled with the Provincial Government’s obvious direction of supporting new mines in BC has many residents of the Comox and Alberni Valleys and everyone in between extremely concerned for the long-term health of local watersheds, air quality and of most importance to most, the shellfish aquaculture industry in Baynes Sound that is sustainably employing over 700 people. “Why would we put this in jeopardy?” locals ask. “Why would we mine more CO² producing fossil fuels when we should be concentrating on and perhaps turning existing subsidies from Government to alternative fuels and energy R&D?”

Management

The loss of Adam Silverstein’ position has many volunteers wondering who’s next? Adam was reaching SEP volunteers in ways no one before has. Adam was last seen working with Quinsam Hatchery staff and community volunteers taking pink eggs. An Area Manager, in there getting his hands all gooey and interrelating with volunteers; we hope we see Adam assigned to a position where he can again share his great attitude and wonderful way with the people out there doing the work to restore, enhance and save the resource.

Fisheries and Aquaculture

No angst locally around PAR licencing because our CA has made it clear he is looking after all the licences. For now.

There is an understanding that the Department will be insisting small stewardship and enhancement Societies “own” their own licences. In most cases this is met with outright shock. The question is “Why?” There are groups who, at this time, are saying that it is DFO’s responsibility and all we are doing is assisting so we will NOT hold the licence as it makes no sense. Until a reasonable and meaningful answer is given by the Department as to why on earth small, dedicated, long-term partners would be asked to take on the responsibility of DFO this resistance will grow.

Enforcement                                   

There have been several instances of habitat infractions locally (wetlands drained without permits, water re-routed without recourse, fuel leak making its way into a stream, etc.) that have had no response from any level of government. Volunteer stewards are reporting these with absolutely no action taken. The harmful actions have resulted in a net loss of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

Habitat, Oceans, Estuaries and Marine    Protection, Rehabilitation and Enhancement

“Beach Wrack Harvesting” an experimental harvest of 1,000 tonnes of a seaweed species called Mazzaella japonica has received support from the Ministry of Agriculture From the shoreline between Deep Bay and Qualicum Bay with the harvesting of 11 million pounds of seaweed by 5 companies next year

Mid and Central Island stewards are hoping that this project will be reconsidered before more damage is done to the marine environment. Seaweed and other vegetation piled on the beach after storm events is what is called beach wrack. Depending on the type of beach and tides, the wrack will stay for a time and then be transported back into off-shore food webs.  A recent study published in Estuaries and Coasts (2011) by Jennifer E. Dugan determined that decaying beach wrack exports substantial amounts of nutrients into nearshore  (and estuary) ecosystems. Nutrients are required for plant life and plankton to grow, which in turn feeds smaller organisms that feed commercially important marine life such as salmon and shellfish.

Salmon Enhancement                   Hatcheries and Production Planning

Several members of the SEHAB Board are looking for opportunities to travel and meet with our constituents. As there is no budget, it has been suggested we talk to our CA and see if we can tag along when they go.

Stewardship & Community         

Community is looking for answers as to what the Federal Omnibus bills will mean to on the ground protection, stock assessments, the RAR and the Wild Salmon Policy.

Oyster River Enhancement Society reports the successful acquisition of te land that houses their hatchery – see attached letter

See attached documents…

Here is a letter Mid Vancouver Island Habitat Enhancement Society (MVIHES) sent to the Ministry of Agriculture about the harvesting of 11 million pounds of seaweed by 5 companies next year from Deep Bay to Qualicum Beach:

We were very excited to get volunteers involved in forage fish mapping in the Parksville / Qualicum Beach Wildlife Management Area in the past year. We felt that this was an activity that would help to address the need to protect the marine environment from further decline.  The experience  has certainly  educated us about the importance of beach ecology and how that relates to the marine environment.

How ironic then that just as people are becoming aware of  the importance of the beach wrack on our beaches and the loss of spawning habitat of forage fish  (i.e. sand lance, surf smelt and herring)  due to shoreline disruptions, a project like this comes along and adds more stressors to both issues.

We can appreciate the need for jobs in the area, but we believe those jobs have to be weighed against the losses in other areas, such as a healthy nearshore ecosystem, fishing and recreation. It's hard to believe that more than 11,000,000 pounds of seaweed per year can be taken out of the ecosystem in the 21 km of beachfront by 5 separate companies, their vehicles, equipment and workers, without major impacts occurring to the life that depends on that ecosystem.

MVIHES hopes that this project will be reconsidered before more damage is done to the marine environment. Thank you for your consideration.

Faye Smith, Project Coordinator MVIHES
Qualicum Beach

Seagrass Conservation Working  Group

c/o 1097 Fabrick Drive,

 Qualicum Beach, BC

V9K  1M9

October 21, 2012

Dear Editor,

It was with some dismay that, through recent media coverage,  we learned  story of an experimental harvest of 1,000 tonnes of a seaweed species called Mazzaella japonica —from the shoreline between Deep Bay and Qualicum Bay on Vancouver Island.

At issue in the article was whether Comox Valley Regional Directors should advise the Agricultural Land Commission to approve the use of an old barn as a drying facility. We echo Councillor Edwin Grieve's concerns about the need for further investigation, especially given that the actual licences are for five companies with a total of 5,000 tonnes annually. It is our concern that the issue is the impact of removing massive amounts of organic matter from nearshore food webs, and other specific issues related to the harvest methods.

Seaweed and other vegetation piled on the beach after storm events is what is called beach wrack  . Depending on the type of beach and tides, the wrack will stay for a time and then be transported back into off-shore food webs.  A recent study published in Estuaries and Coasts (2011) by Jennifer E. Dugan determined that decaying beach wrack exports substantial amounts of nutrients into nearshore  (and estuary) ecosystems. Nutrients are required for plant life and plankton to grow, which in turn feeds smaller organisms that feed commercially important marine life such as salmon and shellfish.

The beach wrack also has many other important roles that keep our ocean ecosystem working for the benefit of fishermen, the tourism industry, landowners and the general community. These include maintaining the backshore; providing food for many invertebrates, birds and animals while on the beach; and fertilizing the intertidal and sub-tidal through nutrients carried to the groundwater by rain.

The harvesting methods may sound benign but even hand harvesting with use of rakes and pitchforks could potentially disturb Sand lance or Surf smelt, forage fish that spawn in the upper intertidal. These fish are key to many ocean food chains including salmon, herring, various whales, and marine birds.

Sorting the beach wrack to ensure they only harvest the target species also presents a problem. Shaking a pitchfork is not a consistent or reliable approach. Sorting is also not enforceable legally and so presents further potential for impacts.

And the actual species being harvested is not clear. We have been made aware of some discrepancies in what is specifically to be harvested and for  clarification purposes we would like see specialized marine biologist review this information so there is a shared understanding between MOA, MOE, the companies and the community at large.

Many aspects of the harvest can not be monitored, or legally controlled. There is considerable trust that the operators will follow guidelines regarding their licences including sorting the species, not raking to the substrate, limiting numbers of people working on site, using only hard substrates to travel on or beach boats upon, etc. We are concerned that initiation of this new industry could negatively impact the ability of the ecosystem and already existing industries to function, and interfere with landowners and residents' enjoyment of healthy beaches.

We understand that a university student is conducting some study on the potential impacts and we applaud this effort, but there needs to be an in-depth study , especially if this situation is to set a precedent for other areas of the Island or province. We need DFO, the province, and municipalities to create regulations controlling the harvest of our beach wrack, or risk losing our living beaches and the industries and quality of life they bring.

Signed

Community Coordinators for Seagrass Conservation Working Group

Diane Sampson - Deep Bay to Qualicum Bay

Michele Deakin - Qualicum Beach/Parksville

Leanna Boyer - Mayne Island

Dianne Sanford - Sunshine Coast

Edith Tobe - Squamish

Nikki Wright, Saanich Peninsula/Chair

CC:  Michael Recalma, Qualicum First Nation

Gary Caine, Ministry of Agriculture

Various local and regional media

Various municipal, provincial and federal agencies and politicians

The Oyster River Enhancement Society has been undergoing some significant changes this past year.  The land we sit on became a regional district park under the supervision of the Comox Regional District.  We now are under a license to operate our hatchery in the park.  As such it just means another level of government to deal with in our ongoing work.  In addition to this our access point has changed and the new road and gating provides some new challenges in terms of maintenance and use.  Finally, our long time hatcher manager Frank Petruzelka retired and we have hired Lyle Edmunds who apprenticed under Frank to take his place.  In spite of these changes we have been able to maintain our hatchery and keep a watchful eye on the river.

Our escapements last fall were typical of previous years.  We had about 500 chinook, 1300 chum, 10 000 coho and 35 000 pinks return in 2011.  This spring we released the usual number of fry along with approximately 40 000 coho smolts.    Soon we will release approximately 70 000 coho fry into the river and transfer 40 000 more to our rearing channel to be released next spring.

One major challenge to our society this year is in the area of funding.  We had to apply twice to the gaming commission for operational funds.  Our first attempt under the education category was denied.  Then we reapplied under the environmental category and obtained a fraction of what we applied for and usually got.  As such our monies available for paying our manager are dangerously low and we could be looking at drastically reducing our operation this fall.  We are actively seeking alternative funding avenues, but while capital grants are common operational grants appear to be quite rare. 

So while we have managed some significant changes this past year, we are faced with some new hurdles to surmount.  Our hope is to sort out the financial matters and continue to enhance the river’s salmon and maintain the spawning channels that we have looked after for the last twenty years. 

The Fisheries Act Protection Resolution

15 March 2012

Preamble:

Canadians expect their government, regardless of party or persuasion, to base environmental legislation on the best available science.  Environmental legislation must be objective and conform with publicly-perceived long-term objectives and in keeping with stated government policy. 

Sections 35 and 36 of The Fisheries Act  were enacted in 1976 as a result of now classic work done by the Yale Forestry School, known as “The Hubbard Stream Experiments”, and work done by the Fisheries Research Board of Canada.  They are based on a sound scientific foundation which is still fundamental to our understanding of riparian processes today.

In spite of enforcement problems, since their inception in 1976, Sections 35 and 36 of The Fisheries Act  have served Canadians well.  They have led to the recovery and protection of fish and wildlife populations.  They have mitigated otherwise irreversible development impacts.  They have provided guidance for the protection of endangered species and the related stated objectives of the Species at Risk Act.

RESOLUTION

BC Nature and its affliliated Naturalist Societies, are strongly opposed to any modification of sections 35 and 36 of The Fisheries Act  which would limit habitat protection to “commercial species” and prioritize the economic needs of development and industry.  To remain consistent with publicly-stated objectives, not to pollute and to protect the environment for forthcoming generations, habitat protection must be enhanced.  In keeping with legal precedent in Federal Court  (2012 FCA 4 ) concerning protection of endangered species, such as the Nooksack Dace (Rhinichys cataractae),  sections 35 and 36 need to be extended to specify the  need to protect “critical habitat”, and enforcement enhanced.

Respectfully,

Dr. Loys Maingon  (President)

Comox Valley Nature (Comox Valley Naturalists Society)

Details

Hits: 3746

SEHAB Member: Jack Minard

Area: Central Vancouver Island/Campbell River

Community Advisor: Dave Davies

Date: November 2015

Key Issues:

What top three points can you distill from community input to take to DFO RHQ?

1. The absence of DFO as a regulator and protector of fish and fish habitat

2. Money made available through the RFPCC is not being thought out carefully enough. These projects should be actual priorities on a watershed basis. There is no money for the planning that would allow for this. There is no money for monitoring.

3. Drought and flooding – extreme hydrographs with too much water running off too rapidly while the summer has nothing left. Add to this the lack of snowpack and melting glaciers, climate change continues to exacerbate this

Stories:

A few examples of successes, failures, challenges.

Success

The Staff and politicians of the City of Courtenay were recently treated to a tour called “The Good, Bad and Ugly” put on by a local community partnership of stewardship groups. The tour focused on activities that took place over the past year and in one case has been impacting valuable habitat for many years.

The objective of the tour was to gain technical understanding of the how and why taken by engineering and planning departments and to impart any knowledge exchange with tour organizers. It was also an objective to show politicians how important it is to have regulatory frameworks in place to protect environmental amenities. Priority setting needs to include the protection of these amenities, particularly fresh water and aquatic corridors.

The tour was a huge success with the City Council passing a resolution to put water conservation it all of its aspects as a key priority for 2016. The engineering staff and planning staff were amazed at the depth of knowledge with the various groups and have agreed to involve stewardship groups early in the process of development.

Failure

A recent re-assessment of the Province’s Sensitive Inventory (SEI) revealed that, although slowed somewhat the dramatic loss of sensitive ecosystems continues.

Challenge

An ongoing challenge is the lack of monitoring undertaken at any level. A Gaps Analysis document completed some years ago revealed that there has been some improvements in what municipalities are demanding of developers designed to protect environmental features however, the development process ends with the development permit and the developer goes ahead. Part of the challenge is that in most cases the developer did not follow many of the conditions laid out in the permit and have continued to damage ecosystems. The other part of the challenge is that there is no capacity in municipalities or Regional Districts to do monitoring.

A clear example of this is a multi-family condominium type development that designed infiltration galleries under the building to receive all roof run off. The design was to meet 50 year rain events by diverting the vast majority of rainfall into the ground with an overflow pipe that carries any overflow, but at the slightest rainfall the outlet from these galleries is flowing freely. Multiple requests have been made to the jurisdiction to look into this but have not been acted on.

The remaining challenge in this scenario is that as it is private property, stewardship groups are reluctant to install flow meters or any other technology to determine if these galleries are working or not. And finally, if they are not functioning in the way they were designed then what can be done as they are now under a fully sold out development.

Issues Specific to SEHAB’s Work Plan:

Submissions, Comments from Groups:

None