Read this story from the Vancouver Sun on the recent discovery of a disease fatal to fish in Atlantic farmed salmon in Clayoquot Sound. (May 16, 2012)
For the first time in nine years Atlantic salmon farmed in British Columbian waters have tested positive for a virus that can be rapidly fatal to them, but is endemic in wild Pacific salmon and largely a low risk.
Mainstream Canada announced today that fish at its Dixon Bay farm north of Tofino tested positive for Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis (IHN). The virus is harmless to humans, but attacks the kidneys and spleen of salmon and can lead to rotting flesh and organ failure. IHN has been present in the waters of B.C. for hundreds of years and wild salmon have developed a resistance to it, though young salmon and sockeye can be vulnerable to it, according to fish virologist James Winton.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency will arrive at the farm tomorrow for testing as Mainstream waits to see if and how many of the roughly 500,000 farmed fish on site will have to be culled.
"This year now turns out to be a very bad year for IHN virus and we still don't completely understand why," said Winton, on the phone from Seattle where he works for the U.S. Geological Survey. "A lot of the sockeye were coming back with higher percentages and higher amounts of the virus, so it's not surprising that we're seeing a cycle again in some of the farms.
"Atlantics - they haven't evolved with this virus so they're sort of susceptible to all strains of [IHN]."
Mainstream spokeswoman Laurie Jensen said the virus may have been passed on to the contained salmon by a wild fish species passing through the area and that IHN is "a fact of farming and husbandry."
Mainstream operates 27 farms in B.C., and 17 of those in the Tofino area. Those 17 are conducting IHN tests of their fish Jensen said.
If IHN is discovered, a company must call in the CFIA as well as Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
The City of Vancouver passed a motion this month demanding that Kinder Morgan pipeline company carry full liability to cover the costs of an oil spill in our Vancouver Harbour. The request is just common sense but demonstrated very uncommon courage in the public political realm.
So, how much liability would Kinder Morgan – the now notorious ex-Enron billionaires from Texas, who bought BC Gas and flipped it for the pipelines – need to carry to indemnify our city from the ravages of an oil spill?
Well, for starters, some $40 billion, as I explain below. But let’s keep in mind:
There is no such thing as “cleaning up” an oil spill. Most “clean ups” get about 10 percent of the oil spilled, like the way a 3-year-old “cleans up” milk spilled on the kitchen floor.
There is no price to cover the soul of this region, the promises of indigenous rights, the food we take from this water, the childhoods on our beaches, the families of creatures and forests of fauna, the identity of this city and region, our heritage, and our dignity. There is no price for that.
Economic costs of an oil spill
The Aframax tankers now using Vancouver Harbour carry up to 700,000 barrels of bitumen, the deadliest crude oil on Earth. To estimate the costs of responding to such a spill, one must examine comparable costs for similar accidents. One method uses the historic “costs/barrel” for responding to oil spills.
The Exxon Valdez spilled 270,000 barrels, about one-third of an Aframax tanker. The Alaska tourism industry lost 26,000 jobs and $2.4 billion immediately - and another $2.8 billion over the next decade. Total loss for tourism alone: $5.2 billion. Ouch.
British Petroleum set aside $20 billion for clean up and compensation in the Gulf of Mexico, but Credit Suisse estimated total BP liabilities of $37 billion, just for cleanup and injury claims.
So, who pays this cost? Exxon has been in and out of court for 23 years over the Exxon Valdez spill, and still hasn’t paid its liability claims. BP is fighting injury claims, but in Vancouver Harbour there may be no such company that would even accept liability. The oil companies – Shell, Syncrude, Sinopec – and pipeline company Kinder Morgan have already indemnified themselves and would decline liability once the oil is on a ship. The ship owner has liability by Canadian marine law, but these days oil tankers are owned by obscure numbered companies with few assets, in slippery jurisdictions, where they can and literally do disappear overnight in the case of serious accidents.
The response costs would fall to Canadians – municipalities, the Province, the Federal government – that is, to the people. Imagine a $40 billion Canadian bill to mop up 10% of a marine and economic disaster, while our schools and social programs disintegrate.
Bitumen’s abrasive personality
Consider a 500,000-barrel bitumen oil spill in Burrard Inlet, 70% of an Aframax tanker. Globally, there has been an oil spill of this size about every 18 months worldwide for the last 40 years.
Bitumen (tar from tar sands) is a particularly dense, toxic version of crude oil. It has to be mixed with some thinner petroleum product to even move through a pipeline, whereby the pipeline industry calls it “dilbit” - for “diluted bitumen.” Something like arsenic diluted with vinyl chloride.
In July 2010, a 30-inch bitumen pipeline owned by Enbridge Energy – that other pipeline outfit angling for the BC coast – burst, spilling 20,000 barrels of tar sands bitumen into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. The challenges of dealing with the heavy, sinking bitumen shocked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which Mitchell Anderson wrote about in the Tyee.
Bitumen, diluted with solvents such as condensate or naphtha, separates in the marine environment. Volatile gases – toluene and the carcinogenic benzene – rise into the air, causing headaches, nausea, dizziness, coughing, and fatigue among the local population. One may fairly assume all other animals that breathe air experience similar symptoms.
After the Kalamazoo River spill, the toxic fumes remained for weeks and could be smelled up to 50 kilometres away. A major Aframax spill in Burrard Inlet – 25-times larger than in Michigan – would likely require evacuations in the lower BC mainland and islands. Clean up crews would battle toxic fumes as they watched the bitumen sink below their skimmers.
Bitumen contains sulphur, paraffins, asphaltics, benzenes, and other toxic compounds. Animals and plants are suffocated and poisoned. The die-off starts at the foundation of the food chain, obliterating the vital mudflat biofilm – the bacteria, diatoms, and mucopolysaccharides that provide a high-energy food source for shorebirds in Burrard Inlet and Georgia Strait. As the bitumen moves with wind and tides, it kills all bottom life, mixes with the intertidal sediments, and kills shellfish, ocean plants, fin fish, and marine mammals.
On top of this, the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (“PAHs”) in bitumen, dissolve in the water. Two years after the Michigan spill, 30 miles of the Kalamazoo River remained closed to fishing, swimming, or even wading in the water.
After a bitumen spill in Burrard Inlet, the toxins would contaminate the entire marine ecosystem from Seattle to Campbell River, and beyond. Most of this damage could not be “cleaned up” at any price
Show me the money
Cleanup: According to the US EPA, historic U.S. crude oil cleanup costs have been about $80/gallon ($3,400 per barrel). The added problems with tar sands bitumen – toxic gas, sinking sludge, and soluble hydrocarbons – push costs up. The Kalamazoo River spill by Enbridge cost 10 times the traditional crude oil clean up costs - about $35,000 per barrel. Comparatively, the cleanup response to a 500,000-barrel bitumen spill in Burrard Inlet would be:
$ 17 billion
Tourism losses: “Tourism is dead,” said Charlotte Randolph, president of the Lafourche Parish in Louisiana, after the Gulf Oil spill. “We're dying a slow death.” Oxford Economics estimated the Gulf region’s tourism industry would lose $7.6 to $22.7 billion over 3 years. Tourism dropped by 35 percent in some Gulf regions. Economist Sean Snaith, from the Institute for Economic Competitiveness in Florida, estimated that Florida alone would lose $11 billion in business activity job losses. BC brings in $14 billion annually in tourism, and we could lose half of this for 2-4 years, so added to the clean-up costs would be the tourism loss to BC over several years, on the order of:
$ 20 billion
Fishing: “I’ve been fishing in BC since 1973,” says B.C. fisherman Ron Fowler, a Pacific Salmon Commissioner and Director of the Area-F Trollers Association. “If we get an oil spill anywhere in these waters, it would wipe out every fishery we have, shellfish, salmon, herring, and the plankton that they feed on. An oil spill would move with the wind and tides and devastate the intertidal zones.” The BC fishing industry wholesale value is about $1.2 billion per year. An oil spill on the coast could destroy a large portion of this for 3-4 years and some shoreline intertidal fisheries for a decade or more. A 40% fisheries loss in the first year could be expected, with recovery to perhaps 10% loss within five years. The potential fisheries loss over several years is in the range of:
$ 1 billion
Health costs: Oil companies, public, and private workers during the Exxon Valdez spill described health effects that forced them from the area and into hospitals. Some first responders in Alaska still suffer from the toxic intake. Bitumen is worse. In Michigan, the volatile benzene and toluene caused nausea, dizziness, headaches, coughing, and fatigue to some 60% of the local population for weeks after the spill. The health department encouraged an evacuation within a mile of the river. As with other oil spills, there will be a spike of cancer and other diseases. A 500,000-barrel bitumen spill in Burrard Inlet would likely cause a mass evacuation and severe health impact for over a million people. The costs could easily reach:
$ 1 billion
Lost Time: The lost time for families, students, workers, business owners, and others in the lower mainland and up to 50 kilometers way, likely farther up the Fraser River past Fort Langley, and south past Whiterock, would be massive. Given our normal tides and winds, the crude oil would be in Nanaimo, Sechelt, and the Southern Gulf Islands within a few days. The lost time for hundreds of coastal communities would likely reach at least millions of person-hours at a cost of another:
$ 1 billion
Port losses: An oil spill would disrupt Port of Vancouver shipping business. The Port contributes over $2 billion in direct revenue per year and over $4 billion in direct economic output. The port generates some 30,000 jobs (~ $1 billion annual wages & salaries). Shipping could be virtually stopped for months and disrupted for several years, so the costs would be on the order of:
$ 1 billion
So there it is, in round figures: a $41 billion price tag for an oil spill, with no one to accept liability except a renegade shipping company in Somalia or the Cayman Islands.
Vancouver and BC brand value: The “Beautiful BC” and “greenest city” reputations would be lost. How much is that worth? Billions more. Stanley Park would be devastated. How do we put a price tag on that? The lost reputation and destroyed ecosystems – if we could even place a dollar-cost on these losses – would double the $40 billion direct costs to make the loss more like $80 billion.
This is the aggregate risk that the Vancouver region must accept if it wants to be the Tar Sands Oil Port in exchange for some tugboat jobs, port fees, consulting gigs, and payoffs.
Normal spillage
All oil ports have oil spills. Most oil spilled into the world’s bays, harbours, and marine environments is “normal spillage,” acknowledged by the industry as a routine “expense,” which they write off as a tax deduction.
Oil terminal workers have admitted that they spill oil virtually every time they load a tanker. Every time. Normal spillage includes routine leaks and spills along pipelines and at refineries, tank farms, and terminals. This constant drain of heavy hydrocarbons into the marine environment kills the intertidal life and other marine species. Try going east of Second Narrows, near Kinder Morgan’s Westridge Terminal and find a healthy clam or crab.
This Inlet once fed the Tsleil-Waututh, Squamish, Musqueam, and Tsawwassen people, who retain rights to this unceded territory. “When the tide is out, our table was set,” recalls Rueben George, Sundance Chief of the Tsleil-Waututh, the indigenous People of the Inlet. Second narrows, the traditional waters of the Tsleil-Waututh, is a sacred place that provided food for many generations. That food resource is already virtually eradicated from the normal spillage from the oil refinery and terminal on Burrard Inlet. “We’ve had enough of seeing our waters destroyed,” says Rueben George. “Second Narrows is sacred to us. Our creation stories go back to this channel of water.”
What price would one place on this? What price for the obliterated natural livelihood of indigenous people, our regional heritage, our marine and intertidal ecosystems, our coastal economy, and our community identity and pride in the sea? There is no way to protect these values and real wealth of this region if Vancouver becomes the tar sands oil port. The only way Kinder Morgan can indemnify the land, water, creatures, plants, and people of Burrard Inlet is to return our pipelines and our public policy to this region and to its people.
As Rueben George said on Earth Day: “We’re doing this for Kinder Morgan’s children too. They deserve a world that is rich and wild and that provides food to people and a place to walk with your children. We’re doing this for their children too. Not just ours.”
I ask because I’m going to be urging such a course in the times to come.
Although he didn’t invent the idea, Mahatma Gandhi invented the modern term when he protested a tax on salt imposed by the British which hurt the poor Indian especially. He broke the law deliberately and went to jail for doing so.
A more current example was that of the Freedom Marchers of the 1960s who challenged the segregation laws of the Southern US by “sitting in” at segregated restaurants; by Rosa Parks who defied the laws of Montgomery, Alabama, by sitting in the white only section of a bus; and by Dr. Martin Luther King who in the same time urged peaceful demonstrations.
Many would go back much further in time to Jesus.
What are some of the rules?
It must be non violent. That is a very important rule.
The law being protested must be unjust in one or more ways. It must be imposed unfairly or itself contrary to law or justice or both.
Those protesting must be prepared to go to jail.
There must be no other reasonable way to attain justice.
They must be effective.
Where do I suggest civil disobedience?
Fish farms, for one area. Government policy allows them yet they are not only in violation of the UN law requiring the Precautionary Principle but against Canadian law in this regard.
So-called “run of river” projects which, without fail, severely damage the river and its ecology usually to the point of - for all intents and purposes - utter destruction.
Pipelines - especially the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines taking the ultra toxic bitumen from The Tar Sands to Kitimat - which don’t pose a risk of huge environmental damage but the certainty of it.
The utter lack of government concern for the environment and the public that wishes to preserve it is underscored by the recent decision of the federal government to dam the Kokish river near Port McNeill – a river that is home to all species of salmon, resident Rainbow, Cutthroat, Dolly Varden and has both a winter and summer run of steelhead.
Tanker trafficking of bitumen from Kitimat or through Vancouver Harbour which, again, don’t pose risks but certainties of huge environmental damage.
Civil Disobedience has had successes in the past in BC but too often there have been one or two who have refused to obey the law and once they have been jailed, the protest has petered out.
We must organize such that scores, even hundreds, defy the law and are ready to do time.
There has been very little by way of organization in the overall community but First Nations appear to be ready and, if nothing else, the rest of us must be prepared to support them and face the same consequences.
Our first step must be, in my view, a clear statement by environmental organizations and individual British Columbians that we will stand shoulder with First Nations - and we at the Common Sense Canadian plan to meet with their leaders and see how we can help.
Read this story and listen to audio clip from CBC.ca on former Conservative Fisheries Minister Tom Siddon's outspoken opposition to Stephen Harper's proposed gutting of the habitat protections of the Fisheries Act in his omnibus Budget Bill. (May 1, 2012)
The former Tory minister responsible for the current Fisheries Act is openly criticizing his successor over proposed changes to the legislation.
Tom Siddon, who was minister of Fisheries and Oceans from 1985 until 1990 for Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives, says he is extremely concerned by the amendments being championed by Keith Ashfield, the current minister.
“The minister of fisheries is the one remaining and most powerful person in Canada to protect this marvelous, historically important resource we have in Canada – our fishery. That’s his job,” he said Tuesday during an interview for CBC Radio's The Current.
Omnibus Bill C-38, which is before Parliament this week, covers an array of legislation, including changes to the Environmental Assessment Act, the National Pipeline Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Exploration Act. Although the changes to the Fisheries Act are not the only flashpoints, they have hit a nerve with critics.
“Anywhere else in the world, Howe Sound would be a great National Park” -Dr. Murray Newman, Former Executive Director – Vancouver Aquarium
A large part of the beauty and international appeal of British Columbia’s West Coast can be found in the natural environment of Howe Sound. Over the past 20 years, Howe Sound has been the subject of millions of dollars in reclamation projects to restore its health, paid for by industry and you the taxpayer. Regrettably an Alberta based company has proposed a large scale gravel mining and crushing facility at McNab creek that will set back these rehabilitation efforts, especially for local salmon populations. This proposal comes at a time when the recovering health of the Sound has led to sightings of Pacific white-sided dolphins and grey and killer whales for the first time in decades. We should not allow this progress to be placed at risk.
The massive project as filed by Burnco Rock Products Ltd, envisions at least 1 million tonnes of gravel extracted per year from the creekbed area with spikes up to 4 million tonnes. During the project’s first phase, a 77 hectare industrial pit would be dug out of the McNab Creek estuary to depths of 55 metres below surface grade and more than 15 metres below the water table.
According to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), the proposed project is likely to result in the destruction of fish habitat which cannot be compensated elsewhere in the Sound. In its comment on the project, the DFO stated that they “continue to have serious concerns about the extent of the impacts to fish and fish habitat that may result from this project” and concluded that “The project presents a high risk to Salmon and Salmon habitat.”
In addition to the risks to fish habitat, the project description indicates the site could be home to up to 20 species at risk, including a population of Roosevelt Elk that were transplanted to McNab Creek by the BC Ministry of Environment in 2001 in an effort to re-introduce the species to the area. The McNab Creek estuary and surrounding waters are extensively used for recreational and commercial fishers, tourism operators, boaters, recreational property owners, numerous children’s camps and other compatible users – all placed in profound jeopardy by the Burnco proposal.
Despite concerns voiced by DFO, local governments and local community groups, the Burnco project has recently begun a review by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
This unfortunate situation clearly illustrates the absence of a long term planning strategy for Howe Sound. The need for a specific Howe Sound plan has been formally recognized by twelve local governments and First Nations representing the communities in the Sea to Sky corridor. In September 2002, they signed a “Principles of Co-operation” Agreement which identified the importance of community involvement in the consideration of issues affecting Howe Sound and the need to “work together for the greater good because territorial lines on a map mean nothing in terms of sustainability”. Notwithstanding the wishes of local governments and First Nations, the review of the Burnco project is proceeding without any long term planning process involving those interested parties.
If approved, the Burnco Mine proposal will cause permanent, irreversible damage to a unique natural estuary that is home to at risk species and will also endanger ongoing efforts to sustain marine biodiversity in Howe Sound. In addition, important jobs and significant economic activity and opportunity in recreational tourism and commercial fishery will be put at risk.
Currently, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) review of the project is underway and the initial public comment period on the proposed project closed on February 3, 2012. CEAA is reviewing the project description and is expected to issue the draft Environmental Impact Study guidelines shortly. The draft guidelines will be subject to public comment and there is expected to be further opportunity for public participation at other stages in the review. A companion review will also be conducted at the Provincial level and the BC Environmental Assessment Office is expected to initiate the process by the issuance of the draft Application Information Requirements (AIR) later this spring. There will be public comment solicited on the AIR. There is expected to be further opportunities for public participation during the Provincial review process although no timeline for public participation has been published at this time.
It is critical that members of the public and community groups make their voices heard during both the Federal and Provincial review processes. Information on the Federal CEAA review can be obtained at www.ceaa.gc.ca and on the BC EAO review at www.eao.gov.bc.ca.
Further developments regarding the next steps in this review process and details of how to make your views known will be posted at futureofhowesound.org. To be kept informed of the status of the review process, join our mailing list for ongoing updates.
Les Morton is a representative of the Future of Howe Sound Society.
Read this profile by the Globe and Mail's Mark Hume of marine biologist Alexandra Morton's decades-long struggle against the Norwegian open net salmon farming industry. (April 20, 2012)
Alexandra Morton sits at her kitchen table and tries to ignore the e-mails pouring in to the laptop open in front of her. She is looking out the picture window at Rough Bay, which is tranquil this morning, reflecting a vivid blue sky and the snow-capped mountains of northern Vancouver Island.
“That's where I want to be,” she says wistfully, as if the sea, which washes ashore 10 metres from her tiny cabin on Malcolm Island, is somehow unreachable because of the life she has chosen.
Her idea of a perfect day is to rise at dawn and head out in her boat, Blackfish Sound, wandering until she finds a tide line where a rich seam in the ocean currents is marked by a ribbon of flotsam. Then she turns off the engine and drifts with a hydrophone hung over the side of the boat.
“You can hear herring. They sound like lemons being squished. You can hear the whisk, whisk, whisk of otter feet,” she says. “You can hear whales, and you can even hear the rocks rolling on the pebble beaches.”
But the days when she can escape to that idyllic world are few, says Ms. Morton, who is tied to her computer, afraid that if she rests, she may fail at her self-appointed task of removing open-net salmon pens from coastal waters.
Read this story from The Province on the confirmation of piscine rheovirus in farmed salmon sold in BC supermarkets. (April 14, 2012)
A newly identified Norwegian virus that affects salmon has made its way into Canadian markets, with test results confirming the presence of the virus in 44 out of 45 farmed salmon bought from Vancouver supermarkets.
The piscine reovirus, which causes heart and skeletal muscle inflammation in salmon, was found in fish bought by advocacy group SalmonAreSacred.org. The stores' seafood departments told the group the fish were B.C.-raised farmed salmon, SalmonAreSacred said in a news release.
Alexandra Morton, the biologist who discovered the infected fish, questioned if that information from store staff was accurate.
The virus is considered a "major challenge" in Norway, infecting more than 400 farms since its first appearance in 1999. Since then, it has also spread to the U.K, and as of last year, Chile.
"If they were imported, that is a huge concern," said Morton.
The origin of the infected fish, which has yet to be confirmed, will dictate whether the Canadian fish industry is at risk or if imports need a more thorough scanning process. The virus has not yet been found in Canadian farmed or wild fish populations, Morton suggested, but she is fearful it will show up.
Based on the diversity in the shape and size of the fish, Morton's impression is that they're coming from different farms.
"I bought these fish from several different stores on several different days and they all are coming up positive with the virus," she said. "They also looked different — long and skinny in some stores and quite large in others."
She said the salmon could have come from a number of places, including Norway, Chile and Eastern Canada, although there is no proof of the virus' existence there.
Morton explained that identifying the source of the salmon, whether imported or not, is "very important," as the disease itself could live in just an egg.
"These are questions that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Department of Fisheries and Oceans should be answering, and potentially the supermarket."
She said the solution that the industry should be imposing is to identify the source of the disease, temporarily contain it, then kill off the infected fish — all in a transparent process.
World Rivers Day founder and Chair Emeritus of BCIT's Rivers Institute Mark Angelo and prominent fish biologist and BCIT professor Dr. Marvin Rosenau have launched a dynamic new initiative to conserve the enormous ecological values of a critical stretch of the Fraser River just East of Vancouver. Known as the Gravel Reach or, "Heart of the Fraser" for its prime spawning habitat - home to dozens of species of salmon, trout, sturgeon and other lesser known but ecologically significant fish - the region between Mission and Hope is threatened by a laundry list of industrial impacts. That's why these two conservationists, along with their students and the support of a number of other environmental organizations have developed an innovative new program to help protect it.
Watch this short video on the launch of the program:
The "Shared Vision" document for the program - whose sponsors also include the Nature Trust of BC, the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, and the North Growth Foundation - describes the nature of the threat to this critical ecosystem and what is required to protect it:
Political, corporate, and public efforts must be coordinated and applied in order to counter the rapid disappearance of one of the most diverse and valuable aquatic and lowland ecosystems in British Columbia. Our goal is to identify, conserve, protect and restore key portions of the Gravel Reach in order to sustain and secure the biological and ecological integrity of the area...The lower Fraser River riparian lowlands continue to rapidly disappear due to continued encroachment through land development, agriculture, and industrial activities that include extensive resource extraction (i.e., logging and mining).
See videos below on gravel mining in this stretch of the Fraser River - including a talk by Dr. Marvin Rosenau.
This important stretch of habitat, which "functions in a biologically rich and diverse manner because of the extensive lateral and vertical inundation of islands, gravel bars, and the riparian/terrestrial ecosystems over the period of the hydrological year," is home to an unmatched collection of fish and wildlife values. A list of these values contained in the program's "Shared Vision" document gives one a sense of just what's at stake here:
"These attributes include:
the largest-single spawning run of salmon in British Columbia, and perhaps North America (these are pink salmon which reproduce in the main channel of the Gravel Reach and may well exceed 10 million fish on the spawning grounds in some years);
the largest population of white sturgeon in North America not influenced by dams or aquaculture (white sturgeon are the largest and longest-living freshwater fish in North America — they can attain lengths in excess of 6 meters, weights of over 600 kilograms, and they can live for over 150 years);
a spawning stock of Pacific eulachon, which up until only a few decades ago was one of the largest runs of eulachon in British Columbia; this small, anadromous smelt leaves the marine environment to spawn in the lower Fraser River in April and May and all individuals die after spawning; the oil- and protein-rich carcasses provide a significant source of food and nutrients for the aquatic, avian, and terrestrial ecosystems of the Gravel Reach, and are an important, traditional food of Fraser River First Nations communities;
a migration corridor for some of the largest spawning runs of sockeye salmon in North America (most of these originate from upstream populations);
juvenile-feeding habitat for local-chum and migratory-chinook salmon stocks that rear along gravel bars and within side channels;
spawning habitat for local chum salmon stocks in the large side channels, which in some years may exceed 1 million returning adult fish;
habitat that supports approximately 30 different species of fish, including at least eight fishes that are considered to be at-risk: cutthroat trout, bull char (both resident and anadromous), Dolly Varden char, eulachon, white sturgeon, green sturgeon, mountain sucker, and brassy minnow.
There are also many other non-fish species of animals living in the Fraser River Gravel Reach that are found in complex combinations occurring nowhere else in Canada, including:
aquatic mammals (seals, sea-lions, river beaver, martin);
large terrestrial/aquatic omnivores including black (and the occasional grizzly) bear;
other large vertebrates include blacktail and whitetail deer, cougar, coyote;
extensive populations of various species of rarer birds including red-tail hawk, green and great blue heron, bald eagle, assorted dabbling ducks, wood duck, purple martin, sandhill crane, turkey vultures;
the Pacific water shrew (a species at risk);
amphibians such as the Oregon spotted frog, western red-backed salamander, and the Pacific giant salamander."
Besides the work of BCIT students continuing to research and map the fish and habitat values of the Gravel Reach, the program is seeking to develop a "Lower Fraser River Ecosystem" working group, comprised of program participants, First Nations, representatives of all levels of government, NGOs and other key stakeholders. The goal of this team would be to advance these conservation objectives through the following tools:
outright purchase of private properties - Nature Trust or other such entity to manage in perpetuity;
donations of private land into a protected area envelope;
evaluation of existing Crown forests within this area to ascertain if a more advantageous land allocation arrangement might be offered to forest companies which would allow the reversion of some sensitive habitats into non-harvestable lands, and subsequent protection;
conversion of existing, non-used Crown lands into Section 108 reserves, protected areas, and/or Wildlife Management Areas (WMA’s);
restrictive-covenant agreements on non-purchasable lands; and
alternative options for protecting First Nation lands need to be explored such as the purchasing of outside-of-dike properties, to be added to existing titles, in exchange for not undertaking development on the lowland riparian lands, or the restoration of currently impacted FN properties.
It's an ambitious program - but given what's at stake in this rich ecosystem, what it represents to the people of British Columbia, and the dire challenges it faces for survival, it would also appear a necessary one.
The Common Sense Canadian will endeavour to keep its readers updated as to the progress of the "Heart of the Fraser Initiative" as it evolves.
The resignation of John Van Dongen from the Liberal caucus to become an instant one-man Conservative caucus has, for me at any rate, put the focus on John Cummins.
Let’s look at Mr Cummins' record and positions.
Mr. Cummins’ claim to fame is his integrity – his record of standing up for BC and his constituency in the House of Commons and paying for this integrity by permanently putting himself offside with Stephen Harper thus disqualifying himself from cabinet.
What was the issue that came up time after time in Cummins’ parliamentary career?
No prize for saying BC's wild salmon. He flouted the law in the cause, risking jail. He fought against First Nations accusing them of illegal fishing. Whenever the subject of BC salmon was raised you would find John Cummins fighting for the symbol and very soul of our province – our wild salmon. I shared platforms at protests with him. On the question of fish farms Cummins stated that there were serious problems that had to be addressed.
This raises two questions – the first was raised by Charlie Smith in the Georgia Straight in the March 27 edition which I sent in a mail-out and is posted on Facebook, namely, how does Mr. Cummins welcome to his new caucus a man who was so steadfast in his defence of fish farmers he even warned them when the enforcement officers were coming and had to resign in consequence?
Is that the Cummins integrity we hear so much about?
I go further, why didn’t either Cummins or Van Dongen deal publicly with this apparent major conflict on a huge issue - why was it left to Smith?
This is small potatoes and will no doubt be brushed aside by noting that fish farms are now a federal matter.
Let’s go to the main issue that will keep Cummins contained within the boundaries of the far right – the Enbridge pipeline and the consequent tanker traffic down our beautiful yet extremely hazardous coast as well as through Vancouver.
Some questions for Mr Cummins:
It is a mathematical certainty that the pipeline will have ruptures and spills – do you agree? If not, are you saying that it won’t happen?
Enbridge has an appalling accident record – 811 since 1998 – does this not concern you?
Are you aware that the pipeline would cross over 1,000 rivers and streams, most of which have fish in them, many tributaries of major spawning rivers and creeks with at least three being essential to large runs of spawning salmon? Assuming that you are aware, where is your concern for the fish you claim to love so much?
Are you aware that the 1,100km line passes through the Rockies and Coast ranges thence through the Great Bear Rainforest? Assuming you are aware, how does Enbridge fix a leak or rupture? How does Enbridge get men and machines into the afflicted area when it’s only accessible by helicopter?
Are you aware that Enbridge has admitted that there will be spills and have set up clean-up protocols even though they’ll not do any good? Are you aware of the fact that even if Enbridge could get to the site, there’s bugger all they can do? Have you examined the Kalamazoo case where 20 months later Enbridge is still trying to clean up a spill – which they categorized as minor – exposing that even though it happened in a populous state by a highway it never will be cleaned up? Do you know about this Mr. Cummins?
Are you aware that Environment Canada, scarcely filled with eco-freaks, has said that there will be tanker accidents on a regular basis with a major one every 10 years?
Here’s what long time fisherman in the area, John Brajcich has to say:
With our family’s 80 plus years of fishing in the Whale Channel area we have firsthand knowledge of tides, weather, types of fish and bird life. The area from Kitamaat to Hecate Straits is designated Area 6, by Fisheries and Oceans Canada and is the most consistent salmon producing region in British Columbia with runs in the odd and even years.
In Area 6 there is:
Within the Central coast area 128 salmon bearing streams
Kitasu Bay to McInnes Island is a major herring spawning ground
All 5 species of salmon, herring, crab, mussels, clams, abalone, prawns, eulachons, pilchards, hake, geoduck, mackerel, halibut cod, pollock, otters, eagles and many birds, plus whales and porpoises
Tides that fluctuate over 20 feet causing currents of up to 5 knots
Being a region of heavy snow and glaciers there are very strong freshets from May to the end of July
The outflow winds from Douglas Channel can be extreme during summer and winter
Weather in Hecate Straits - because of strong complex currents, waves have been recorded up to 30 metres. The highest wind gusts recorded for November, December, January, February and March is 180 -190-plus km per hour.
If a ship enters Laredo Channel from Hecate Straits at McInnes Island the tanker would have Lenard Shoal and Moody Bank at the bottom of Aristazabl Island. On the east side of Aristazabl Island there are 2 very dangerous rocks known as Wilson and Moorhouse. Campania Sound is also a very treacherous body of water from Dupont Island to Hecate Straits.
There are many rocks and to name a few, Bortwick, Cort, Ness, Evans, Cliff and Janion also Yares Shoal. This area is a minefield of reefs. These rocks are spread out between Rennison Island, Banks Island and Campania Island. This route would be extremely dangerous to tanker traffic. Using the Otter Pass route, Nepean rock becomes a very prominent problem for ships’ travel.
On the question of damage Mr Brajcich says:
Should a major oil spill occur I feel an oil boom would not be able to contain it because of the velocity of the current in this area and the oil could travel 20-50 miles in one 6 hour tide. This area is not the Mediterranean or a lagoon. If a spill occurred in Laredo Channel the herring spawning area at Kitasu Bay to Price Island could be totally destroyed, possibly forever. The eel grass which the herring need to spawn on could be wiped out. Some years over 10,000 tons of herring spawn in this area.
A spill at freshet time would be the most devastating. Due to the differences of its viscosity, salt water is heavier and would be lower and the fresh water being lighter, becomes a shallow layer at the surface. The juvenile salmon live in this fresh water layer as they migrate to sea. The juvenile salmon jump like raindrops and if they were migrating in a spill area the oil could wipe out an entire run. Some streams could become barren of salmon.
Do you accept that evidence, Mr. Cummins? If not, where do you quarrel with your fellow commercial fisherman’s evidence?
Let me be blunt.
With the forgoing, how can you possibly support the Enbridge pipeline and tanker traffic of more than 200 per year out of the port of Kitimat?
How can you possibly expect the public of BC to vote for a man and a party that approves the certainty of massive damage to our beautiful wilderness accompanied by huge, irreparable damage to our coast and destruction of hundreds of thousands of BC wild salmon – likely permanently.
Let me tell you this, Mr. Cummins – you are a man I’ve long admired for the courageous stands you have taken on the preserving and enhancing of our BC salmon.
But that’s before you looked just like the political phoneys you used to fight so hard when you had a halo.
Read this article by Charlie Smith in the Georgia Straight on one key difference between BC Conservative Party Leader John Cummins and his new MLA and BC Liberal defector Jon Van Dongen. (March 27, 2012)
B.C. Conservative Leader John Cummins and his party's new MLA, John van Dongen, were very chummy yesterday in front of the media.
And why not? Van Dongen, a former B.C. Liberal cabinet minister, had crossed the floor to the B.C. Conservatives just in time for crucial April 29 by-elections in Chilliwack-Hope and Port Moody–Coquitlam.
As I watched the televised news coverage last night, I was left with a question: how will these two fast friends get along when it comes to fish farming?
In 2003 as a member of the Commons fisheries committee, Cummins wrote a dissenting report attacking the federal role in aquaculture...
...As B.C.'s minister of agriculture, food and fisheries, van Dongen was the cabinet minister who lifted the provincial moratorium on fish farms in 2002.
In a widely distributed opinion editorial, van Dongen contradicted some of the points made by Cummins in his later report.
rough a pipeline, whereby the pipeline industry calls it “dilbit” - for “diluted bitumen.” Something like arsenic diluted with vinyl chloride.